Where is MAURA MURRAY

GatorChamps2006 wrote:

I put myself in the shoes of Maura Murray that night and try to parallel exactly what I would do if I were in her shoes. Evidence at the scene does not factually prove she was drinking, but there are indicators that someone in the car was drinking. Since that's an undisputed, tangible piece of evidence, for this particular scenario, I'm assuming Maura was drinking (which ostensibly makes perfect sense).
I'm Maura Murray.
I just got into an accident in the middle of no where (while on my way somewhere).
I've been drinking.
If the police come right now, they'll smell the alcohol, see the (possibly open) liquor in the car and I'll probably be arrested, charged with a DUI and placed in jail. I'll have to call my family to get bailed out, which might cost thousands of dollars.
It is colder than a freezer outside. I want to get away from this car and this accident as soon as possible - the longer I'm here, the greater the chances are that someone comes by calls the police, and therefore the greater the chances are that I get a DUI.

I believe you assume too much based on the following points.

1. It's not against the law to drink and drive. Your ability to drive has to be impaired by alcohol and/or drugs, or your blood alcohol level has to be 0.08 or greater. Maura had been drinking before she wrecked her dad's Toyota, but she wasn't charged with DUI.

2. The only alcohol found in the Saturn was a box of Franzia wine in the back seat not easily accessible by the driver without stopping and getting out of the car. We don't know if she had opened the box or the box was compromised by the force of the accident. Perhaps both happened and that would explain the wine spatters inside the Saturn. No drinking container was found inside the car. Sgt Smith found a coke bottle under the car that smelled like it contained alcohol. We don't know if the driver or someone else at the scene deposited the bottle. For all we know it may have been there before the Saturn arrived. An open back window in the Saturn suggests that a passenger was sitting in the back seat.

3. The driver did not appear to be in a hurry to leave the scene because she waited 40 minutes, assuming the accident happened a few minutes after 7 pm, which is the time the Westman's heard the loud thump. The Westmans saw activity around the car so the driver did not suddenly regain consciousness 35 minutes after the crash when the SBD shined a flashlight into the car. Instead, the driver's behavior is consistent with someone waiting to be picked-up.

4. We can't even be certain that Maura was driving the Saturn because the SBD's identification was uncertain.

5. The ambient temperature rose above freezing at 2 pm and remained unseasonably warm for the rest of the day. Characterizing the ambient temperature as "colder than a freezer" is inaccurate.

6. The accident appears to have been staged since the dent in the hood was caused by metal against metal contact with an overhanging metal object and not a snowbank or tree. Maura does not appear to have had a motive to stage an accident at that location.

7. The gloves were a Christmas gift and we have no evidence that Maura ever wore them, so the scent trail may not have been her scent. Presumably, she would have taken them with her if she was in the car and she had previously worn them.

whiston wrote:

Hi Citigirl the saturn was registered to mr Murray so i assume he was the owner.Was Mauras name on the title.How soon after Maura vanished did mrMurray sell the toyota or does he still have it.I don't remember seeing it in any video.take care philip

Philip,

The car was registered to Fred Murray.

whiston wrote:

Hi Citigirl the saturn was registered to mr Murray so i assume he was the owner.Was Mauras name on the title.How soon after Maura vanished did mrMurray sell the toyota or does he still have it.I don't remember seeing it in any video.take care philip

Yes, the car was REGISTERED to Fred. Fred was the LEGAL owner. That said, it was still "MAURA'S CAR" in the sense that Maura was the one who was its primary driver. It went to school with her. It was "her" car in every sense except the legal titleship. Which, in this instance, is not a big freakin deal, Philip.

I have been in possession of cars since I had a driver's license. More than one of those cars has been registered and titled under the name of one of my parents. They were still all referred to in the household as "my" car. As in, "FireCat, would you please move your car? I can't get the lawn mower out of the garage." Or "I need to get the oil changed in my car, mom, I'm going out."

The indicator of MAURA'S CAR is simply to differentiate it as the car she drove, not to indicate legal ownership.

No one is intending to distort facts, mislead anyone, disseminate false information about the car. The car, in the simplest sense, is Maura's because she drove it.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe that the scent would have had enough time to deteriorate over two days. She could have walked further. Also, it wasn't known if she actually wore the gloves. It appears that many Christmas gifts were found in her car, and we don't even know if she ever removed them from her car after the holidays. The gloves may have just been sitting in her car over a period of time. It seems that once she left her car that she would have taken at least one pair of gloves with her, but we don't know for sure. It's possible that she didn't even wear the gloves found in her car, in which case the dogs wouldn't have a proper scent to go on. Also, why did Fred Murray choose the gloves as the scent object? There was a stuffed animal that many think would have provided a better scent object. I don't know about the gloves, what their significance is, or the significance of a deteriorating scent trail, but one has to think that if Maura wore the gloves, and her scent was the dominant scent on the gloves, that she was probably the person driving the Saturn. But if the gloves were in the car, and someone else used them while staging an accident (maybe to avoid fingerprints), took them off, left them in the car, and caught a ride in a POV, this would also explain the scent trail. Or, if the gloves were just sitting in the car, someone who staged the accident will also pick up some of Maura's scent by just sitting in the car. Therefore, the person would carry Maura's scent for maybe a short distance, the same scent that is on the gloves. If the dogs were following a secondary scent, taking into consideration with the passing time (two days), would explain why the scent had deteriorated. I don't think the scent from the gloves is enough to conclude that Maura was in the car at the WB.

Maura typically didn't wear gloves, according to her family and those who knew her best. She often pulled her shirt sleeves down over her hands if they got cold.(she's doing this in the picture with her dad at the summit of some peak)

Curious wrote:

Since this forum isn't about me I will answer with a quick response and say 'Yes'. That post wasn't meant to point the finger. Just noting. I think at this point any suggestions or observations could be helpful and I thought was welcome. I only have the best intentions in mind. I apologize to those that might have taken my previous posts as troublesome.
If the bus was running for heat then the SBD's capability of hearing would be limited. Just a thought.
I also came across a while ago regarding a knife given to FM. The person who had given that knife had made a comment that he thought his brother and his girlfriend had something to do with it. FM had mailed this to NHSP after they refused to take it. Was this a dead end lead?

It's only a dead end in the sense that the police have not said anything about it. Whether they have tested it and are keeping it close to the vest is anyone's guess.

Shack, Do you have the link to Brians Predictions that goes to Maura's page. If so, would you link it for me. I need to check out certain numbers. Thanks in advance.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe that the scent would have had enough time to deteriorate over two days. She could have walked further. Also, it wasn't known if she actually wore the gloves. It appears that many Christmas gifts were found in her car, and we don't even know if she ever removed them from her car after the holidays. The gloves may have just been sitting in her car over a period of time. It seems that once she left her car that she would have taken at least one pair of gloves with her, but we don't know for sure. It's possible that she didn't even wear the gloves found in her car, in which case the dogs wouldn't have a proper scent to go on. Also, why did Fred Murray choose the gloves as the scent object? There was a stuffed animal that many think would have provided a better scent object. I don't know about the gloves, what their significance is, or the significance of a deteriorating scent trail, but one has to think that if Maura wore the gloves, and her scent was the dominant scent on the gloves, that she was probably the person driving the Saturn. But if the gloves were in the car, and someone else used them while staging an accident (maybe to avoid fingerprints), took them off, left them in the car, and caught a ride in a POV, this would also explain the scent trail. Or, if the gloves were just sitting in the car, someone who staged the accident will also pick up some of Maura's scent by just sitting in the car. Therefore, the person would carry Maura's scent for maybe a short distance, the same scent that is on the gloves. If the dogs were following a secondary scent, taking into consideration with the passing time (two days), would explain why the scent had deteriorated. I don't think the scent from the gloves is enough to conclude that Maura was in the car at the WB.

I believe that you may have relied on what I said in a post about a week ago regarding Fred Murray selecting the gloves to be used as a scent object. I relied on my memory when I made that statement and someone pointed out that he wasn't present and could not have selected the scent object. I spent several hours trying to find the source for my statement and finally gave up without finding it. Therefore, if you relied on me, you're probably wrong, unless you relied on the source I could not find and now believe was a false memory.

Scent trails are believed to be composed of microscopic dead skin cells from the outer layer of our skin that continuously fall from our bodies and float to the ground forming an invisible trail in our wake that dogs can detect with their super sensitive sense of smell. Windy conditions spread the trail far and eventually too wide for a dog to follow. Wet conditions suppress the scent.

Dogs need to be trained and subjected to periodic testing by their handlers to determine how reliably and accurately they follow scent trails. Search and Rescue teams in the Seattle area, which is where I'm from keep records on the training and performance of their scent dogs. I don't know if that was true in this case, but it's another interesting unknown worth checking out.

Finally, if Maura never wore the gloves and someone else did, the dog would have followed that other person's scent, assuming it was not mistaken.

No matter which way CW came home he would have seen something. All the lights flashing and bouncing off the Buildings, windows and snow would ba able to be seen. If he noticed this and had just seen a girl hurrying down the rd. by the intersection of 112 and 116 Benton rd. in the middle of winter at 7pm or later it might srike him as odd and maybe tell LE what he had seen. We have to remember that CW has stated he was coming home from work, he was sleeping on the couch and never heard a thing and he never came forward with his info until April 29th 2004 about seeing the person hurrying down the rd. If you live right there, go to the store or talk to neighbors he would have known what happened on Feb 9th and gave his info sooner.

It is completely possible that someone from the area had something to do with Maura's disappearance, why not?

Butch Atwood should have seen what was happening at the scene once he had backed his bus in. He was parallel with 112 facing the scene.

Was it noted anywhere that maybe there was other tracks at the site?(Snowmobiles, four wheelers.. etc) Being a wooded area are there trails located next to the WB that are used for such things?

One more point on scent dogs that I forgot to mention. Hot, windy, and dry conditions dissipate a scent trail the fastest and hard surfaces like roads do not retain scent very long. In the road category, a road with high volume traffic traveling at high speeds is least likely to retain a detectable scent trail because vehicles generate high winds that scatter the microscopic dead skin cells far and wide so that no detectable scent trail is present for very long.

We would have to know how much traffic passed along Rte 112 during the period from Monday around 7:40 pm until Wednesday when the dog was shown the scent object and commanded to search. Based on what I know, it's possible that a detectable scent trail was present. As with just about every other aspect of this case, I lack sufficient information to confidently form an opinion.

BTW, a glove is an excellent scent object since the dead cellular material accumulates and remains inside the glove. Of course, someone has to wear the glove, or it's worthless.

I wonder if the people who live directly across the street from CW at 3 Bradley Hill rd. saw anything that night. Their clear view of the acc. scene from there should have been even better that the CW. Just a thought.

Jumping in, haven't read previous posts, with a question:

Did Maura use a CREDIT CARD (NOT ATM card) to get one or more cash advances before she left? She might've had a lot more than $280.

REMINDER: I posted a question last night on the other site that the registered users can vote on. Here's the question.

Are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Maura Murray is dead?

If you scroll below the voting section, you'll see a standard set of jury instructions that I put together defining first degree murder, reasonable doubt, etc. I intended them to be used as a reference to answer the poll question and they should help answer other questions relating to the sufficiency of evidence to charge someone, etc.

The poll question is on everyone's mind, I think. So, let's see where we stand on this issue.

I encourage everyone to go over there and vote. Registration is easy and free. You only get to vote once and the poll will be open for 6 more days.

Could the CW really have seen Maura running from the scene and perhaps picked her up.
Maybe she told him not to involve the police. He could have dropped her off anywhere and changed his story at a later time when things started to heat up.

Curious wrote:

Was it noted anywhere that maybe there was other tracks at the site?(Snowmobiles, four wheelers.. etc) Being a wooded area are there trails located next to the WB that are used for such things?

The SAR people reported finding lots of animal tracks and snowmobile trails, but no sign of a human on foot alone.

They searched the area within a 2-mile radius of the accident site.

gvmeabrk...(sp?)

Hope this helps..

http://www.briansprediction.com/warnings014.h...

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe you assume too much based on the following points.
3. The driver did not appear to be in a hurry to leave the scene because she waited 40 minutes....
7. The gloves were a Christmas gift and we have no evidence that Maura ever wore them, so the scent trail may not have been her scent. Presumably, she would have taken them with her if she was in the car and she had previously worn them.

I intentionally ignored a number of details in this case simply because I cannot prove that they're factual - there are different people saying one thing happened while others say the complete opposite happened. Practically everything you just named is your own personal assessment of what you imagine happened.

For example, you claim that it was an unseasonably warm that day, when dozens of other sources, including CNN as well as local newspapers and news outlets, have stated it was "cold and snowy" - in New Hampshire, that means WELL below freezing. Although I respect your opinion, I'm going to side with CNN. I grew up in the Northeast, and for it to be warmer than 30 degrees on a February night is rare, especially as far north as northern New Hampshire. It seldom ever gets near freezing at night up there. One way to prove what the weather was like that night is to buy a local sampling from weather-warehouse.com

You're basing a number of your points off of the theories that YOU personally (and others) have came to - for example,(a) that it may not have been Maura driving the car,(b) that there may have been someone in the backseat,(c) that there are huge timing discrepancies between what actually happened and what didn't happen, and (d) that she wasn't drinking. Although I respect your opinion and wouldn't argue with any of these points, they're not proven to be the least bit factual. I stated before I started typing that I was going strictly off of what was reported to be the details.

Timing discrepancies between when things happened is speculation that is limited solely to this forum and not to any reliable investigative source.

Although I do agree with you that it's possible the accident was staged, again, that is speculation limited strictly to this forum. If investigators feel that this is a realistic possibility, they obviously haven't shared it (to my knowledge).

Finding a coke bottle with a reddish-color alcohol (WINE) in it under the very car she was driving is NOT a coincidence. It's very possible that she quickly threw it under the car to destroy any concrete links that the bottle was in the car, because having alcohol in an open container like that is against the law and she would've been arrested immediately. It only makes sense that she would try and get it out of the car. Additionally, it's been proven that she bought more alcohol in Amherst before she left than just what was found in the backseat, meaning that she BROUGHT the other bottles of alcohol with her wherever she went.

I strongly disagree with you "presuming" she would bring gloves with her. I've been through dozens of Northeast winters and ONLY wore gloves when I was a little kid playing in the snow. Regardless of what I was doing, shoveling snow, outdoor for hours, I never wore gloves. If she was hopping right into another car, why in the name of God would she put gloves on for that?

Again, I went based on what's been reported. That's not necessarily what's accurate, but the speculation amongst people in a forum certainly doesn't qualify as accurate. I do respect your opinion, as you are one of the more logical people in this forum, and I would not dispute your assessment of what you think happened, because it is possible. I just didn't use the details in your assessment when I put myself in her shoes.

Truth...

A good theory about the CW. Keep thinking out of the box.

Okay, no problem. We have so few facts to work with that 90% or more of everything said on this forum is speculation, which certainly includes me.

Wowzer..

Why would 116 Benton Rd. be a better way to go in the winter. When you first turn over the bridge there is a sharp right turn and up a hill with a sharp left turn followed by more of an incline. This rd then reaches its crest and descends around another very sharp turn over a brook and back up another incline. The CW worker was driving a 2 wheel drive van at this time and this type of vehicle is not very good in the snow.

Going straight thru on 112 following the river may be more bumpy, but there are only a few curves and no real inclines except for the curve and incline just before Atwoods house.

I have travelled these rds. extensively over the past 4 1/2 yrs in both winter and summer and knowing what the conditions can be, 116 Benton rd. would not be the smartest way to go.