Where is MAURA MURRAY

I agree with Whiston/phillip............ we DON'T know if she ever left. ... since the family did not view the atm tape. we really don't know. I am still hoping for only the best.

Benja wrote:

<quoted text>What are some of the places you slept in when you were younger?

I'll save you the bother of the next question - because there is always something to wonder about:

I'll send you a stool sample to inspect, if you leave me an address to send it to.

I can't remember if anyone posted on the 911
tapes yet for Grafton County Dispatch according
to the High Sheriff their tapes are re-used after 30 days unless they are request for evidence.
He wasn't sure what Concord's policy is.

Hope that will help so to move beyond ever having exact time and work the appox. as the rest of have been.

We think we are frustrated........... Think of the family. To not see the last known picture of your daughter/sister. That can only mean one thing. something is on there that is a clue and giving that out could jeopardize the investigation. I would go nuts if that was my family member and i couldn't see the video.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Alden's many personalities....?

No firecat...

_if__that__is__your__real__nam e_....

*dun*
*dun*
*dun*

It is her real name -

*dun*
*dun*
*dun*

- she was probably born in the 60's.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Peri,
I can't recall where I saw a page of the dispatch log, but I do remember reading an entry that placed Sgt Smith at 6:30 pm on Petticoat Lane, which intersects Rte 116, the Dartmouth Highway, in the North Haverhill area. The Petticoat Lane intersection is 3.2 miles from Cottage Hospital.
Cottage Hospital is on Swiftwater Road in Woodsville. Given that the hospital employee said he passed her on Goose Lane with his emergency lights on headed toward Rte 112 at approximate 7:10 pm, it looks like Smith drove north on Rte 116 into Woodsville and turned right on Swiftwater Road. He must have been dispatched to investigate the Saturn accident after he cleared the Petticoat Lane call. We can't be certain exactly where he was when he was dispatched to investigate the Saturn accident, but North Haverhill is 0.7 miles south of Petticoat Lane. We can guesstimate he was somewhere between Petticoat Lane and North Haverhill when he was dispatched, or between 3.2 and 3.9 miles from Cottage Hospital. If he was dispatched at 7 pm, this would match-up pretty closely to him passing the hospital employee on Goose Lane approximately 10 minutes later.
Continued

Hello Mason,

Interesting posts of yours there.
Just a very minor correction:
The Dartmouth College Highway is not Route 116, but Route 10. Route 116 is the east-westerly connection between Route 10 at Haverhill and Route 112 just past Benton.

White Wash wrote:

I can't remember if anyone posted on the 911
tapes yet for Grafton County Dispatch according
to the High Sheriff their tapes are re-used after 30 days unless they are request for evidence.
He wasn't sure what Concord's policy is.
Hope that will help so to move beyond ever having exact time and work the appox. as the rest of have been.

That is a very bad policy because criminal cases, particularly felonies, and civil suits are rarely, if ever filed within 30 days of the 911 call that precipitated the police investigation that led to charges being filed and/or a civil suit. The 911 call many times is material evidence that absolutely must be preserved.

Here's an example. A police officer violates a citizen's right under the Fourth Amendment to not be subjected to an unreasonable search seizure, if the officer pulls a citizen motorist over without a reasonable suspicion that the citizen motorist has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Let's say the officer decides to pull over a white female driving a 1996 Buick LeSabre with MA plates based on a 911 call in which the caller reported that a white female driving a 1996 Buick LeSabre with MA plates is carrying a firearm. He finds the gun and arrests her for carrying a concealed weapon and takes her to jail. She's charged with that offense. What happens?

Whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to justify the stop depends on whether the information conveyed by the 911 caller contained sufficient facts that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the woman was carrying a firearm. In the example I provided, the caller stated a conclusion without any facts to support it so the traffic stop was unlawful. However, let's tweak the facts a little and say the caller reported that the woman yelled at her at a gas station and pointed something at her that she thought might be a gun and the dispatcher told the officer that the caller said the woman pointed a gun. What happens?

The legal rule is that the case must be decided on what the caller said. Therefore, what the dispatcher told the officer is irrelevant. However, if the tape was destroyed 30 days after the call before criminal charges were filed, no one would know what the caller said. The couty would be forced to decide the validity of the stop based on the officer's recollection of what the dispatcher said. But that information not only was irrelevant, it also was false. A wrongful conviction results because material evidence was destroyed.

Seriously, they need to change that policy and they need to change it ASAP.

Dawn wrote:

We think we are frustrated.......... Think of the family. To not see the last known picture of your daughter/sister. That can only mean one thing. something is on there that is a clue and giving that out could jeopardize the investigation. I would go nuts if that was my family member and i couldn't see the video.

Any ideas what it could be?

In the next to the last paragraph, the word couty should be changed to court.

Never let it be said that I referred to a judge as a cootie.

I can't believe I did that. Is that what's called a freudian slip?

Mama mia!

If Mason is right about the times, and we assume Maura was at the WB accident site, if Sgt. S hadn't mistakenly turned left on Cemetery, he may have arrived on the scene in time.

Eurobserver wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Mason,
Interesting posts of yours there.
Just a very minor correction:
The Dartmouth College Highway is not Route 116, but Route 10. Route 116 is the east-westerly connection between Route 10 at Haverhill and Route 112 just past Benton.

Thanks, Euro. I accept your friendly amendment even though you spell tire, tyre.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

<quoted text>
Any ideas what it could be?

Although I also am suspicious, it's possible that the cops obtained a photograph of Maura from DMV and made the ID themselves, or they may have asked one of her UMass friends to look at the video since they live in Amherst and the friend made the ID.

Still unusual, however. And, I'm also surprised that they didn't contact her family to let them know. No good reason that I can think of not to do that unless there is something in the video that they want to remain confidential, such as Maura isn't the person in the video or someone else is with her whom they later identified or still may be attempting to identify.

That is hilarious Mason............. COOTIE

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

If Mason is right about the times, and we assume Maura was at the WB accident site, if Sgt. S hadn't mistakenly turned left on Cemetery, he may have arrived on the scene in time.

Interesting and quite possibly true observation.

White Wash wrote:

I can't remember if anyone posted on the 911
tapes yet for Grafton County Dispatch according
to the High Sheriff their tapes are re-used after 30 days unless they are request for evidence.
He wasn't sure what Concord's policy is.
Hope that will help so to move beyond ever having exact time and work the appox. as the rest of have been.

Soooo.....were these tapes requested as evidence, by any chance?

Mason wrote:

In the next to the last paragraph, the word couty should be changed to court.
Never let it be said that I referred to a judge as a cootie.
I can't believe I did that. Is that what's called a freudian slip?
Mama mia!

Don't know a lot of judges, then, do ya! LOL

Assuming it isn't an LE coverup, why wouldn't LE allow the family see the tape unless it had information on it that could jeopardize the investigation?

What would be on the tape that would be so important?
1.) the person withdrawing cash from Maura's account isn't Maura
2.) Maura has changed her appearance in such a way that could jeopardize the investigation if made public
3.) someone else was with Maura

in the case of #1, who could it be? in the case of # 2, how would she have altered her appearance (hair down, dyed black), in the case of #3, who?#3 seems unlikely, especially if the person had any intent of harming Maura, as they wouldn't want to be seen on a ATM camera, right? I'll go for the first two scenarios or a cover up. Any other reasons anyone can think of? For the same reason,#1 seems unlikely, unless someone who looked like Maura withdrew the cash (but what are the chances of a Maura lookalike being involved in her disappearance unless they were paid off for doing it). I'd have to go for number 2, which leads me to believe that Maura actually withdrew the money. Unless she was planning to leave MASS then why withdraw the money? Yet, if we consider a LE coverup is involved, then #1 seems very likely as well.

Are there other reasons why LE wouldn't want the family to see the tape? If not, and we assume there is no cover up, I'd say it's likely Maura was indeed planning to leave Amherst for a few days and actually drove her Saturn north.

...if Maura never left Amherst, then it's likely a LE cover up is involved, because it would have probably been someone else on the tape? Unless, of course, she met with the person responsible for her disappearance after leaving the ATM and before heading North, but I don't think there was enough time for that, given the times that currently place the ATM transaction and at the WB accident.

In my mind, I feel I could almost conclude that if Maura is in the video, she had every intention of going north, and probably made it at least part of the way, if not the entire way, to the crash site at the WB

or

if she is not on the tape, and it's someone else, she probably never made it out of MASS and a LE cover up in involved.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes there were toys in the yard. When you have a child or children they play with toys. No mystery there.
And yes the trailer was close to the road, Bradley Hill Rd. It was much closer to BH than it was to 112.
Peri it seems you ahve something in your head and there's no changing it so please don't take my word for anything. You have said that pictures don't lie so look at the pictures on new site, especially "Related sites in general area" and Accident site to Atwoods picture. You can barely see the top of his roof thru the trees so I have a hard time understanding how he had a good view.
Now look at "Accident Location/curve" and see the yellow curve sign in the picture, that is lawn of the CW's neighbor.
Down the road across from the bus is Bradley Hill where CW's house/trailer sets back from 112.
Can you see it? I didn't think so so how could he have had a clear view to the accident?
Pictures don't lie!

Woszer:
You are correct the CW could not have had a clear view of the accident site, I never said he did, however, it would be pretty impossible to come down the 112 and turn onto Bradley Hill road and not see at 8:15 (which would be the time of his arrival if he passed Whicheverville Road at 8p.m. which is his statement) and not have seen all the emergency vehicles parked along the road.

Do you agree or disagree on this point?

Seeing all these vehicles should have clicked in his head to associate the youth ducking from tree to tree in a region that was unpopulated...and the accident...that is all I believe?

The School Bus Driver did not have a stellar view, however, the new pictures of his house show it is much closer to the road than I previously IMAGINED, as the picture on the MMM site did not show a clear view of the SBD's house...

That being said, I believe the school bus driver could/should have seen is someone walking by his house or a car stopping.

The moon had not yet risen, cloudy, it would be hard to identify clearly who walked by or who passed by, but he could see well enough to know a car stopped or a person walked by his driveway.

The school bus driver did say he saw the police had arrived at 1946 when he came out of his house after making the phone call which does not jive with the time of the sherriff's log,the time that he placed the call to Hanover 911 and in return Haverhill called him back seconds later, still at 1943.

Heck I doubt how well the school bus driver could have seen Maura to positively identify her from the 15 feet away that he states he was at the accident scene.

My only point is the CW could not have missed all the hubbub at the accident scene when he turned off the 112 to Bradley Hill Road. The School Bus driver could not have missed someone stopping at the accident scene to pick Maura up.

If that is a stretch of the imagination I stand corrected...

The SC

If Maura was afraid of someone, and this led her to change her identity and head north, this would also explain why she was afraid of driving her car. Maybe she wasn't afraid of the car, but afraid of someone who would recognize her in the car. Perhaps that's why she wanted to get rid of it, as to not be recognized by someone. But, then, if she is going north to get away from someone who is after her, why the alcohol?

On another note, As for the ATM video (if there is such a video at all) ditto for the liquor store video (see my previous post).-which leads me to another question... if these videos don't exist, and LE fabricates their existence, this also leads me to believe a LE coverup is involved and that she never left Amherst.

Y'all, I'm teetering 50/50 on whether or not Maura ever left Amherst. Knowing if there is indeed a video of her at store or ATM, and what is on that video could really help in solving this case. AND if LE has video, and video does exist, and Maura isn't on it, why hasn't an arrest been made. Would the evidence be too circumstantial to hold up in court? Mason?

If Maura is on the tape, why not show it. Wouldn't it be normal for it to be released to news agencies soon after the disappearance, to give it some media attention and show it to people who may be able to help find her? It seems that I've experienced sometime in my life, a news agency showing a person who recently went missing, with a person saying something along the lines "and in this video we see her purchasing gas, which is the last knows sighting of her" Or something along those lines.

Now I'm back to thinking that 1.) the tape doesn't exist, or 2.) Maura isn't on it, she never leaves Amherst, and someone is covering up a big nasty secret.

Sorry to jump around but...

A few pages back, Truth wrote that the man who gave Fred the knife was the brother of a man living in the AFrame. Do we know this to be true?