Where is MAURA MURRAY

Detective Columbo wrote:

I am not saying it has anything to do with finding Maura. It has everything to do with knowing the score of what this area can be like. Do you really know?

Yes I know exactly what it can be like.
What do you think this area can be like? Do you really know?
Ooopsie, sorry I forgot you don't answer questions.

Detective Columbo wrote:

I will not answer your question about when or where guns were pointed at me. It is the truth and I know it for a fact. Also almost everyone in the North Country has a gun in the house, carries a gun in their vehicle or has a gun on their person. This was basicly stated in newspapers by WM who owns the Stage stop store. I can say this as it was in the paper. I have lived here all my life, all 49 1/2 yrs of it and know this to be true in most cases. I am not saying these were bad people, they were just scared of the unknown or felt threatened. I was never threatened but was asked to leave the property before I ever stepped out of my truck.
I am very proud to live in NH and let me say I am not trying to harm anyones community, I am trying to solve the disappearance of Maura Murray and will continue to do so. If this happened near my home I would be doing the same thing I am now, looking for answers and supplying info that is truth. Sorry to say, but bad things happen everywherere and you have to deal with it. Sorry your neighborhood is in the limelight but she went missing on rte. 112 so this is where we are concentrating are efforts. We have also been in Pike, Benton, Warren, Woodsville, Lisbon, Littleton, Bethlehem, Franconia, Easton, Lincoln, Lyme, Landaff, Monroe, Sugar Hill, NH. Also Amherst, Hadley, Hanson, Hanover, Littleton, concord, Warren, palmer, Massachusetts. So PLEASE don't feel singled out in any way, start at the last place she was seen and work outward from there. That is a lot of towns and a lot of square miles.
I have only used a very few names in talking about this case. If a name was used it was most likely after someone else brought it up. I have not accused anyone by name of anything.
I am here to do a job and will continue to do so. That mission is to find Maura Murray, whether she is alive or dead. If feelings are hurt in the process, I am sorry for that.
Just remember if something bad did happen to her in your neighborhood, don't you want to know?
I also have never said it is a dangerous place, just stated the facts. People will read what they read and believe what they want. I love NH and the North Country and don't want to hurt it in any way, but I also want to live where it is safe for You, Me, and anyone else who may come here.

I am disappointed in your outright refusal to answer a simple question. If you make such a statement as you have about guns being pointed at you then you should have the ba*** to back it up.I guess we should just take your word that everything you say is the truth.
You are correct in stating that many here have guns. Of course we do because most of us are hunters. Hand guns might even be carried by some too. I know I feel safer when I am walking in the woods alone with my 45. I am getting too old to outrun a bear or coy dog.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it could and we mustn't forget that Sgt Smith responded to the call from the vicinity of Petticoat Lane by driving 3 miles N/B on Rte 10 into Woodsville. He turned right onto Swiftwater Road at Cottage Hospital and continued on Swiftwater Road to where it becomes Goose Lane past the brier Hill intersection, and he continued on Goose Lane until he reached Rte 112. Along the way, he passed the hospital employee who was driving home after work on Goose Lane. Therefore, both of them should have noticed an abandoned vehicle in the ditch on the side of the road, but the didn't report it, if they did.
I believe the information that Anne heard over the radio was about the accident halfway between the Weathered Barn and the Bradley Hill Road intersection. Needless to say, identifying the person who reported to police that the female driver left the scene of the accident in a privately owned vehicle is the key to solving this case.

How can there be no record of the call about a female leaving the scene in a POV? For it to be broadcast out for all to hear on a scanner shouldn't it be in some log some where? Could this be what is in the log that Det Col. has that has not been released yet?

Is someone here able to explain what protocol is for this? If something is heard on a police scanner does it also get logged... or is it supposed to be?

I agree this is key.

Part 2

This is a huge and significant difference from what I would have expected him to say, given his other statements. I expected him to say she remained with the car, or she's waiting in the car, or something to that effect. Therefore, I believe he must have seen Maura leave the car, or he never would have said that. Yet, he told Smith that he didn't see her leave the vehicle. What second thoughts caused him to play dumb with Sgt Smith?
Now, what about the statement that Anne heard? The statement that Maura left in a privately owned vehicle? Well, I'll bet there's a reference to that statement in the Hanover Dispatch Log for 1943 hours on February 9, 2004. And the caller was either Butch or Barbara Atwood.
Notice that Barbara Atwood saying Butch "has no idea where she is" is consistent with Butch saying "she got into a privately owned vehicle and left the scene." In both cases, he might not know where she is, but the specificity of the second statement coupled with not revealing that information suggests a deliberate effort to conceal material information to prevent or delay Smith from finding Maura.
We know Atwood didn't tell Sgt Smith that she left in a private vehicle because Smith issued a BOLO for a woman on foot. Therefore, unless Anne is mistaken about what she heard over the radio, Atwood concealed material information from Smith. Since we already know that he told Smith he didn't see her leave the scene, which his wife contradicted when she talked to Ronda Marsh, Butch Atwood's credibility is deep in the toilet.
Anne, on the other hand was concerned about her friend's safety. Her friend was new to the area and not used to driving on icy and snowy roads. When Anne heard about the accident over the radio, she thought her friend was in the accident and she feared for her friend's life. Therefore, she paid very close attention to reports about the accident and was relieved to hear that the driver left the scene in a privately owned vehicle and apparently okay. I believe that her recollection is accurate.
For these reasons, I think we'll find that statement on the Hanover Dispatch Log and tape. If it's there, Mr. Atwood better lawyer up because he's gonna have a lot of splainin to do and no one is going to believe anything he says unless it can be independently verified.
If I'm right, he's got a come-to-Jesus-moment staring him in the face and he better give up the identity of the driver of that privately owned vehicle that he appears to have been protecting and everything else he knows about this case before the roof falls in on him.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Atwood does identify the driver of the other vehicle and that person turns out to be connected to the interesting angle that Alden has been patiently developing in Amherst.

I'm not saying it's time to crack open the bubbly or even put it on ice, but I'm finally beginning to believe we're getting somewhere instead of just spinning our wheels and slinging mud all over each other.

Even if this turns out to be yet another dead end, I want to express my sincere thanks to Anne who nearly five years ago sat listening to a radio because she was worried about a friend and during her silent vigil, she heard a brief remark that, because of her good heart and perseverance in the face of some not-so-easy-to-bear criticism, she kept patiently mentioning until its significance finally penetrated through my thick skull and enabled me to see this case in a different light.

I hope we're finally getting to a point where we can dare to hope that we can finally answer the question that each of us has struggled to answer. Where is Maura Murray?

Detective Columbo,

Do you, the PIs, or the Murrays have a copy of the Hanover dispatch log for the evening of February 9, 2004?

Pointer wrote:

OK, so, a man points the finger at his own brother, who lived fairly close to the accident scene. Sometime after Maura's disappearance the brother leaves or is evicted (for essentially an unkept place from what I've read, junk in the yard, etc.) and then dogs indicate a cadaver in the house. Why are we not focusing more on the A-frame again? I'm sure I must be missing something. Fred obviously thought it was significant.

Three reasons I can think of:
1.) testing was done on the carpet and the results were negative
2.) testing was done on the carpet and the results were positive and investigation is still ongoing and the positive DNA test on the carpet is not enough to warrant an arrest
3.) the carpet testing was not completed because there is a big fat coverup.

It would be almost impossible for the owner of the school bus company not to have learned that one of his drivers had been the only person who talked to someone, maybe Maura Murray, at the scene of the Rt. 112 crash.

And it obviously would be next to impossible for him to not learn that Maura Murray was, at least officially, a resident of a dorm very close to his office.

Of course Fred was present during this search!

If the LE had released Maura's property to them than who supplied the gloves?

Fred did indeed present them to the search
team Sharon id them on the MMM as a gift from
her!

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

White Wash, are you certain Fred Murray was present? I'm thinking he and the other family members drove to North Woodstock, Lincoln and possibly to Conway on the Kankamangus Highway to distribute flyers with Maura's picture and ask people if anyone had seen her. I don't believe they returned until late in the afternoon after the scent dog followed the trail. I'm not saying you're wrong because I still have that memory stuck in my mind that Fred selected one of the gloves as a scent object, but I haven't been able to verify that memory.

I'd appreciate it if you could refer me to something that would settle this issue for me. I hate it when I remember reading something and can't find it.

Thanks,

M

Mason wrote:

Part 2
This is a huge and significant difference from what I would have expected him to say, given his other statements. I expected him to say she remained with the car, or she's waiting in the car, or something to that effect. Therefore, I believe he must have seen Maura leave the car, or he never would have said that. Yet, he told Smith that he didn't see her leave the vehicle. What second thoughts caused him to play dumb with Sgt Smith?
Now, what about the statement that Anne heard? The statement that Maura left in a privately owned vehicle? Well, I'll bet there's a reference to that statement in the Hanover Dispatch Log for 1943 hours on February 9, 2004. And the caller was either Butch or Barbara Atwood.
Notice that Barbara Atwood saying Butch "has no idea where she is" is consistent with Butch saying "she got into a privately owned vehicle and left the scene." In both cases, he might not know where she is, but the specificity of the second statement coupled with not revealing that information suggests a deliberate effort to conceal material information to prevent or delay Smith from finding Maura.
We know Atwood didn't tell Sgt Smith that she left in a private vehicle because Smith issued a BOLO for a woman on foot. Therefore, unless Anne is mistaken about what she heard over the radio, Atwood concealed material information from Smith. Since we already know that he told Smith he didn't see her leave the scene, which his wife contradicted when she talked to Ronda Marsh, Butch Atwood's credibility is deep in the toilet.
Anne, on the other hand was concerned about her friend's safety. Her friend was new to the area and not used to driving on icy and snowy roads. When Anne heard about the accident over the radio, she thought her friend was in the accident and she feared for her friend's life. Therefore, she paid very close attention to reports about the accident and was relieved to hear that the driver left the scene in a privately owned vehicle and apparently okay. I believe that her recollection is accurate.
For these reasons, I think we'll find that statement on the Hanover Dispatch Log and tape. If it's there, Mr. Atwood better lawyer up because he's gonna have a lot of splainin to do and no one is going to believe anything he says unless it can be independently verified.
If I'm right, he's got a come-to-Jesus-moment staring him in the face and he better give up the identity of the driver of that privately owned vehicle that he appears to have been protecting and everything else he knows about this case before the roof falls in on him.

I notice you are using the SBD's first and last name here and on the new forum along with even his past phone number. You are accusing someone of doing things that you have no proof of. He has been questioned and investigated till the cows come home but you are still putting him in a guilty light. You seem to take this whole mystery into a direction that only you seem to think is the only correct direction. But you've been told this before by others and ignored their statements.
You are spending much time writing scenerios, changing facts to suit you and making this all very confusing especially for new people.
It's obvious by some of your statements that you think single handedly you will do what LE, PI and people that have been on these forums for years have not been able to do and that is to solve this on your own. I think you are in for a big let down as I believe if it is solved it will be by all the work LE is and has put into it.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
I notice you are using the SBD's first and last name here and on the new forum along with even his past phone number. You are accusing someone of doing things that you have no proof of. He has been questioned and investigated till the cows come home but you are still putting him in a guilty light. You seem to take this whole mystery into a direction that only you seem to think is the only correct direction. But you've been told this before by others and ignored their statements.
You are spending much time writing scenerios, changing facts to suit you and making this all very confusing especially for new people.
It's obvious by some of your statements that you think single handedly you will do what LE, PI and people that have been on these forums for years have not been able to do and that is to solve this on your own. I think you are in for a big let down as I believe if it is solved it will be by all the work LE is and has put into it.

Wowzer, you are the voice of reason.

Hi Wowzer,

I am one of the 'new people'. The SBD's name and old phone number are for all to see in the records on at least 2 other sites. I have also read his name in countless newspaper reports.
I think his name is known by even the new folks.

When I read Mason's posts I do not get the idea he is trying to accuse any one person without proof.
Perhaps all the evidence in this case has not been made available to the public or perhaps it has. I do not know.
Who would be upset if anyone can singlehandedly put the pieces together. In reading a lot of these posts I get the feeling that LE and PI's are here posting and reading. I find it hard to believe anyone here would be let down if this case gets solved by anyone, including LE.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
I notice you are using the SBD's first and last name here and on the new forum along with even his past phone number. You are accusing someone of doing things that you have no proof of. He has been questioned and investigated till the cows come home but you are still putting him in a guilty light. You seem to take this whole mystery into a direction that only you seem to think is the only correct direction. But you've been told this before by others and ignored their statements.
You are spending much time writing scenerios, changing facts to suit you and making this all very confusing especially for new people.
It's obvious by some of your statements that you think single handedly you will do what LE, PI and people that have been on these forums for years have not been able to do and that is to solve this on your own. I think you are in for a big let down as I believe if it is solved it will be by all the work LE is and has put into it.

Thank-you for your remarks. I agree I shouldn't have used his name, although I was thinking at the time that it probably didn't matter since he moved to Florida and the phone number was part of a quote that I copied from the dispatch log that's posted on-line at the MMM site and, of course, it's no longer valid. Nevertheless, I think it's a better idea to use initials and I will do so.

You didn't criticize the substance of what I said, so I'm going to assume that you have no criticism there.

I hope you realize that I'm doing everything that I can to solve this case and I've been very supportive of local law enforcement, particularly Sgt Smith whom many others have criticized. I've also been very supportive of some of the local folks like Anne, so I'm not into bashing the locals as a group.

I don't trust the SBD because of the conflicting statements he gave, not because he lived near the accident. I've stated my reasons and I believe they are valid. I suspect he's near or at the top of LE's list of suspects too.

Most of all I want this case solved ASAP and if I can assist LE to do that I will. I really don't care who solves the case or whether I get any credit for my contribution. I keep reading and rereading and thinking doing the best I can to present as many different theories as possible, so long as they are consistent with the few facts we have. When someone points out a mistake, I apologize, thank them, and make the necessary correction. I have no personal interest or ego involved in defending any theory I've presented because each theory must stand or fall based on its merits, not on the name of the person who presented it, which is irrelevant.

Go ahead and clobber me, if you think I'm wrong. A smart ass like me needs that reality check every once in awhile.

Cheers.

truth wrote:

Hi Wowzer,
I am one of the 'new people'. The SBD's name and old phone number are for all to see in the records on at least 2 other sites. I have also read his name in countless newspaper reports.
I think his name is known by even the new folks.
When I read Mason's posts I do not get the idea he is trying to accuse any one person without proof.
Perhaps all the evidence in this case has not been made available to the public or perhaps it has. I do not know.
Who would be upset if anyone can singlehandedly put the pieces together. In reading a lot of these posts I get the feeling that LE and PI's are here posting and reading. I find it hard to believe anyone here would be let down if this case gets solved by anyone, including LE.

There is arrogance in making the assumption that Maura's disappearance will be solved here, on the internet.

BTW, so does Alden.

truth wrote:

Hi Wowzer,
I am one of the 'new people'. The SBD's name and old phone number are for all to see in the records on at least 2 other sites. I have also read his name in countless newspaper reports.
I think his name is known by even the new folks.
When I read Mason's posts I do not get the idea he is trying to accuse any one person without proof.
Perhaps all the evidence in this case has not been made available to the public or perhaps it has. I do not know.
Who would be upset if anyone can singlehandedly put the pieces together. In reading a lot of these posts I get the feeling that LE and PI's are here posting and reading. I find it hard to believe anyone here would be let down if this case gets solved by anyone, including LE.

truth, I agree, after all he lived right there and most of his personal information, he gave himself. I was surprised with all the scrutiny he had already been subjected to that he provided more to the Hanson Express. I totally can empathize with his position of being scrutinized repeatedly! It has always seemed to me we just need one more peice of info....but that could be too optimistic.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
There is arrogance in making the assumption that Maura's disappearance will be solved here, on the internet.

Perhaps, but I was not making that assumption.
Is it just as arrogant to assume that it couldn't?

Not my definition - got it on the internet...
Internet:
an electronic communications network that connects computer networks and organizational computer facilities around the world.

The internet does not solve crimes. People solve crimes.

truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps, but I was not making that assumption.
Is it just as arrogant to assume that it couldn't?
Not my definition - got it on the internet...
Internet:
an electronic communications network that connects computer networks and organizational computer facilities around the world.
The internet does not solve crimes. People solve crimes.

Are we not connected on the internet? How, then, are we connected here?

Anyway, nearly 5 years is evidence, not arrogance, of prying and nagging and being unable to solve Maura's disappearance.
Perhaps the job is best handled by the proper authorities.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
Are we not connected on the internet? How, then, are we connected here?
Anyway, nearly 5 years is evidence, not arrogance, of prying and nagging and being unable to solve Maura's disappearance.
Perhaps the job is best handled by the proper authorities.

Right, because they are doing a stand-up job!