Where is MAURA MURRAY

Dawn wrote:

Snowy it was an oversight. It was the end of the day. I left you out Whiston - who has done sooooooo much, quiji and Peri and am sure some others. I think we all know who does the trash talk.......... One has been obviously absent too. hmmmm

Ooops...I mentioned it for others, not for me.
And there's Wowzer and Bill...and more.
I'll shut my mouth for once.

I don't like asking this question. Since weeper states it is a recovery operation - I must ask - did they drain french pond?

SBD wanted it made clear he went there.

Yes, it sure feels like I should tiptoe into this room! I hope this isn't the 'calm before the storm'!

I do not believe French Pond was drained.

Anne I agree.. it has been very quiet today. Maybe since it is getting closer to the anniversary people are being more considerate of the family - that is what i would like to hope.

Regarding
"Just to get Louise Chaput out of the way... "

I'd love to be able to regard that as "merely" a horribly poor choice of words.

"There is good reason to believe that she was killed by someone involved in the Bish disappearance."

No, there is not, except within your paranoid ravings. No one besides you, Alden/Beagle/Eagle/Mason/BF/Be nji - which is, by some reckonings, "many" people. No one in the immediate area, and no one to my knowledge who should have knowledge of the case, has ever suggested anything other than a brutal murder. Perhaps you were "only" referring to the Bish case, but as I understand it, Ms Chaput's was no case of "manslaughter." You are merely seeking to exclude Ms Chaput's case because it doesn't line up with at least one of your "theories."

I scarcely know where, or if, to start with the "well, if all that was ever found in the Bish case was scattered bones [!!!], we don't know the actual cause of death, and it might not have been homicide."

If that's your "reasoning," there are relatively few cold cases that would ever be solved. Huh. And you were Benji as well. Interesting.
Again, Alden, there are real, living, grieving families who can only be tormented by your minimizing of the cases of their loved ones.

Great post SB.

I have a feeling.. holy roller, good heavens and .. what was the other one.. oh yes - for the love of god - will show up any second.

the love of god wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, Snowy, you are wrong. Why don't you just stop trying. The various names I have used have never been in conversation with one another. Besides, it should be so painfully obvious which names I have used, and the names that others have used - it shouldn't require explanation. Some of you assume that my intention is to deceive through the use of monikers, but that is just silly. Anyone who pays attention can tell that isn't the case.

Totally true.

Unfortunately, not too many pay attention. Or if they do pay attention, they seem to get unnerved by it. It really does bring out a weird and high level of hostility. It may be a generational thing, except a cyber or virtual generational thing.

Different monikers? On the same thread? Same person but different monikers on different websites? Oh my God! What will happen when Ike's term ends? Will we really get a Catholic President? Chaos is everywhere!

I know Alden pi$$es people off every now and again. I admit he has ticked me off. Sometimes he cracks me up - it's so off the wall.. sure I will get it for that one - but its true

Louise Chaput was murdered. I don't know how brutal it was, but she was definitely murdered.

It is widely BELIEVED that Molly Bish was murdered, and it SEEMS likely that she was murdered, but as far as I am aware, no cause of death has been officially made public. With so few of Bish's remains having been found, I'm not sure how easy it would be to conclusively determine a cause of death. Maybe LE has determined one, released that information, and I've missed it. Or maybe LE has determined a cause of death and they are not releasing that information. I just don't know.

So, going on what is PUBLIC information, I think it is quite possible that Bish's death was not murder. I'm not saying that Bish's death was not murder, but I think it is POSSIBLE that it was manslaughter or an accident. Yes, she was probably murdered, but based on what is known by the public, she may - may - not have been murdered.

Has the exact cause of death of either Louise Chaput or Molly Bish been officially made public?

If not, then it's hard to see how the average person can conclude their deaths were so different from one another. Maybe they were and maybe they were not. Again, if relevant information is available to the public, then I'm unaware of it.

So, yes, it's very possible to learn through an online search of public information that the same person MAY have killed both Chaput and Bish. I don't mean that it is remotely possible. I mean that it is reasonably possible - possible enough to warrant further inquiry by LE. It is not proof. Is is a reasonable possibility, one worth pursuing. But that's not my job. I only bring attention to it. LE will do what LE will do.

At this late date, even if it's one chance in a hundred - maybe one chance in a thousand - it's still worth pursuing because that one chance in a hundred or in a thousand is statistically far, far higher than it would be for the average person.

I take that back - Alden/Beagle - she was just a kid - it was murder not manslaughter. No I wasn't there - she was taken from her job - she left things behind so I don't believe she left willingly.

Personally, I see that a reasonable theory can hold that Chaput's and Bish's deaths are related murders.

I'm not sure why the "MO" is necessarily so different, but if Detective Columbo thinks it is, then that difference is easily explained by the different value that each victim represented to her attacker(s).

Bish, as opposed to Chaput, may have been seen as a biological commodity. It's the 21st century. Such a thing is not only NOT out of the question, such as thing was predicted by LE at least 20 years ago and is now a reality as demonstrated by two recent, high profile convictions for the illegal sale of body parts.

If the same person who was responsible for or took part in an abduction of Bish is also responsible for or participated in the murder of Chaput, then it is not unreasonable to think Chaput's death may have been a murder sparked by some kind of disagreement between her and someone known to her, maybe someone she was going to meet.

It is very possible that Bish's disappearance was, to put it bluntly, a theft of body parts and that, if the Bish and Chaput cases are connected, that Chaput's murder was the result of a disagreement between two people who knew each other.

It's just a theory, and understandably it's not a theory most people find easy to adjust to, but it is very grounded in reality. The reality of the 21st century. The Brave New World that is already here.

Beagle wrote:

Louise Chaput was murdered. I don't know how brutal it was, but she was definitely murdered.

Has the exact cause of death of either Louise Chaput or Molly Bish been officially made public?

"Chaput traveled from Canada to Pinkham Notch for a short vacation. She decided to take a short hike before dark up the Glenn Boulder Trail. About a week later, her body was found stabbed multiple times not far from where she started the hike."

http://www.wptz.com/wnne/2656665/detail.html

LG...High Five..!! A voice of reality...!
Refreshing....TX

If it makes anyone feel better to call Chaput's murder "brutal," then by all means, say it was brutal. I don't know what constitutes a brutal murder as opposed to a non-brutal murder. Pain? Duration? "Brutal" is a splashy term used by reporters and the general public, but it's not the most scientifically precise term available. While the level of brutality in the Chaput murder is relevant to a thorough investigation of Chaput's death, it is not necessarily relevant in connecting it with the Bish murder (assuming it was murder). Brutality may help identify the killer as enraged, but that's a state of mind, which is important, but "brutal" does not say too much with any precision about the attack itself. And that's PART of what I would guess an "MO" is based on.

An enraged person may have brutally murdered Chaput, but may have coolly abducted Bish.

Also, just because Bish was abducted does not mean she was murdered. She may have escaped her abductor, who left the scene, and then an hour later have tripped and hit her head on a rock. It's tempting to believe she was murdered, and it is probably true, but in the absence of official statements - as opposed to general assertions (by the Warren PD, for example)- such a belief is just that, a belief, not a known fact.

If Bish's death was officially declared a murder, then that would help. But I doubt authorities have released, understandably, any details to support such a statement.

Dawn, may I quote you? Oh many one, when will you stop diverting this thread?

Sophie Bean, Lady Gray, it is encouraging to see you both.

Just theoretically here...

If one person were (1) known to have frequented and been very familiar with and had access to the area where Bish's body was found at the time of her disappearance,(2) was known to be in Jackson, NH at the time Chaput was killed, and (3) resembles the "person of interest" in the sketch on the Bish website, would this person be worth a closer look?

Or is that an example of six degrees of separation?

So much fruitless speculation re the MM case. So many questions. The original MMM forum was a hotbed of guesses, speculation, queries, leaps of logic. So many of the questions could be answered by Helena just picking up the phone and calling Fred. Never did she do this. Why was she so afraid to communicate with him? Instead it was just hash and rehash over and over again.

Theorizing that there is a connection between the Bish and Murray disappearances should be regarded as potentially helpful, not diversionary.

To say a theory is diversionary is to strongly imply, if not actually state, that the diversionary theory is known to be false to its presenting poster and it represents a deliberate attempt to delay or otherwise interfere with the discovery of why Maura Murray disappeared. Or that it at least represents an attempt to knowingly and deliberately interfere with the expression of others on this thread.

So here's your chance to step up to the plate and spit it out in plain English.

State in clear, UNAMBIGUOUS terms what, EXACTLY AND FULLY, what you think the purpose of presenting a "diversionary" theory is. Why would a poster post such a "diversionary" theory?

Remember, no beating around the bush. No inside jokes or snide remarks. Just straight out answers that any reasonable person would readily and unmistakably understand.

Christina wrote:

So much fruitless speculation re the MM case. So many questions. The original MMM forum was a hotbed of guesses, speculation, queries, leaps of logic. So many of the questions could be answered by Helena just picking up the phone and calling Fred. Never did she do this. Why was she so afraid to communicate with him? Instead it was just hash and rehash over and over again.

Neither she nor anyone else had ever even met Maura Murray.

There seem to be two definitions of "family." One is Maura Murray's immediate family. The other is an extended family of some kind.

Occassionally, someone will say that she is a close friend of the family, but this is a little hazy. What part of Maura Murray's family is she a close friend of? And for how long? A close friend since February 9, 2004?