Where is MAURA MURRAY

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Murphysboro I mean several O's,
I am sorry if I sounded like I was directing my frustrations at you because I was not.
I was concerned that the statement you quoted may have come across as something I fabricated which was not the case.

No problem, thanks. I knew that your post was fact. That's why I used it to make the point of conflicting statements. Sorry, if it was misinterpreted. Not my intention.

Assumption: Maura was at 112 and Old Peter's Road for a reason.

There are only several explanations:

1. She was going to a destination that nobody can even hypothesize (because her most logical route to all hypothesized directions would not have led her there).

2. She was lost (which is unlikely, given that she knew the area well and had printed directions in her car to particular destinations nowhwere near where she had the accident).

3. Someone else was in the car with her and that person provides the motivation for being there.

For me, nothing supports possibilities 1 or 2. But one possible fact supports possibility 3. One witness thought she saw a man in the car. For some reason, the rag in the tail pipe also - for a reason I cannot articulate - suggests to me that someone was with her.

John wrote:

Does anyone have a good theory on why she was headed east on 112? Even if Barlett (as some seem to think) was her destination, that was not the best way to go.

Lincoln?

John wrote:

<quoted text>
That might be the stupidest theory every offered about any topic

why?

propaganda firetruck wrote:

<quoted text>
why?

Because immediate family are made aware when their son/daughter is put into a witness protection program. Fred is still searching.

John wrote:

Assumption: Maura was at 112 and Old Peter's Road for a reason.
There are only several explanations:
1. She was going to a destination that nobody can even hypothesize (because her most logical route to all hypothesized directions would not have led her there).
2. She was lost (which is unlikely, given that she knew the area well and had printed directions in her car to particular destinations nowhwere near where she had the accident).
3. Someone else was in the car with her and that person provides the motivation for being there.
For me, nothing supports possibilities 1 or 2. But one possible fact supports possibility 3. One witness thought she saw a man in the car. For some reason, the rag in the tail pipe also - for a reason I cannot articulate - suggests to me that someone was with her.

After reading all the circumstances surrounding this case when CNN aired the story a couple months ago, I have always thought that Maura driving up north by herself, at night, in the cold, with a clunker car, all the while fresh off recently totaling her dad's car seemed VERY unlikely.
I believe(not that it matters) that she either never left Amherst, or if she did leave Amherst, someone was helping her get the Saturn north.

Sara wrote:

<quoted text>
After reading all the circumstances surrounding this case when CNN aired the story a couple months ago, I have always thought that Maura driving up north by herself, at night, in the cold, with a clunker car, all the while fresh off recently totaling her dad's car seemed VERY unlikely.
I believe(not that it matters) that she either never left Amherst, or if she did leave Amherst, someone was helping her get the Saturn north.

Hello Sara,

I totally agree with your conclusions there.
These are also the two most likely scenarios in my mind.
I´m also of the opinion that the "accident" site of the Saturn on Rte 112 by the Weathered Barn was staged and faked.
Remember that witness T. M-e (whose house was/is near the junction of Rte 112 and Bradley Hill Road) was reportedly saying that he from his window could see how the Saturn was being reversed into the snowbank where it was later found.
According to his witness report the Saturn was wilfully driven into the snowbank.
In my opinion much too little has been made of this witness statement by T.M.
He is apparently the only person who actually saw how the Saturn came to end up in the snowbank.
For some reason it must have been important for the Saturn to be found - otherwise why not dump it in the wilderness of the National Forest just literally round the corner a bit further down Rte 112?

Eurobserver wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Sara,
I totally agree with your conclusions there.
These are also the two most likely scenarios in my mind.
I´m also of the opinion that the "accident" site of the Saturn on Rte 112 by the Weathered Barn was staged and faked.
Remember that witness T. M-e (whose house was/is near the junction of Rte 112 and Bradley Hill Road) was reportedly saying that he from his window could see how the Saturn was being reversed into the snowbank where it was later found.
According to his witness report the Saturn was wilfully driven into the snowbank.
In my opinion much too little has been made of this witness statement by T.M.
He is apparently the only person who actually saw how the Saturn came to end up in the snowbank.
For some reason it must have been important for the Saturn to be found - otherwise why not dump it in the wilderness of the National Forest just literally round the corner a bit further down Rte 112?

Better yet, why leave the license plate attached to the car? If I was trying to successfully ditch a car, I would remove the license plate for obvious reasons. So to me, either a plan went wrong and whoever fled did not have enough time to remove plate, or someone wanted the car identified. And this witness that saw the car being backed up does indicate the car was possibly staged. Next two questions, who staged it and why? Also, was this the original intended spot supposed to be the weathered barn, or did something not go according to plan?

Sara wrote:

<quoted text>
After reading all the circumstances surrounding this case when CNN aired the story a couple months ago, I have always thought that Maura driving up north by herself, at night, in the cold, with a clunker car, all the while fresh off recently totaling her dad's car seemed VERY unlikely.
I believe(not that it matters) that she either never left Amherst, or if she did leave Amherst, someone was helping her get the Saturn north.

Yeah these two are saying what I think.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone suggested the possibility to me that certain theories/hypotheses seem to have been built from a DESIRED CONCLUSION back to Maura's DISAPPEARANCE, rather than working from the DISAPPEARANCE with supported facts toward an ACCURATE CONCLUSION.

Come now - your an educated person with a profession. What does DSM say about anyone that believes that several random and disbursed people all coincidentally just happen to "DESIRE A CONCLUSION" that will materially impact the subjects life?

Benjamin Franklyne wrote:

<quoted text>
Come now - your an educated person with a profession. What does DSM say about anyone that believes that several random and disbursed people all coincidentally just happen to "DESIRE A CONCLUSION" that will materially impact the subjects life?

Hi, Ben ~
Occasionally, when I try to tread more carefully than I should, I may not clearly deliver the message or meaning I intend.

I'll be more specific -

For example: If "Alden of-many-names" has personal issues or a previous history associated with, say...UMASS, or a certain judge, or with right-to-lifers...then his theories, if built around these experiences may tie into Maura's disappearance, but would be biased.
This would, reasonably, serve a personal "agenda" rather than to apply directly to Maura's disappearance.

In other words, the connections that Alden's theories make seem viable on appearance, but to be tested, they need to be absent his unknown, personal biases, if they exist, in order to stand on their own merits.

Another example:

If someone has issues and a history associated with the NH judicial system, and/or a belief that all local LE are corrupt, then that bias would also be reflected in any position taken with respect to Maura's disappearance.

Someone who takes a strong position on the matter for Liko Kenney and against local LE will also carry a personal bias to formulating any theories about Maura's disappearance.

For our purposes in a general discussion, isolating and excluding a bias or agenda matters only to the extent that a theory is formulated with as much fact and verification as possible.

I suspect this is only slightly clear than mud now.

Sara wrote:

<quoted text>
Because immediate family are made aware when their son/daughter is put into a witness protection program. Fred is still searching.

still doesn't make it the stupidest theory. Maura was an adult, and if she was in witness protection her family may not have been notified. Doesn't each case call for various methods? I don't think it's the most likely theory, but it is not stupid.

Sara wrote:

<quoted text>
Better yet, why leave the license plate attached to the car? If I was trying to successfully ditch a car, I would remove the license plate for obvious reasons. So to me, either a plan went wrong and whoever fled did not have enough time to remove plate, or someone wanted the car identified. And this witness that saw the car being backed up does indicate the car was possibly staged. Next two questions, who staged it and why? Also, was this the original intended spot supposed to be the weathered barn, or did something not go according to plan?

Maybe someone was involved with her disappearance at Amherst, and that person planted her car in NH to avoid suspicion.

According to questionable sources, Maura mentioned to Fred that she was in trouble and was afraid for her safety. Maybe she was being followed. This would help to explain the two accidents in a three day period. Both, being afraid or being run off the road may result in an accident.

propaganda firetruck wrote:

<quoted text>
still doesn't make it the stupidest theory. Maura was an adult, and if she was in witness protection her family may not have been notified. Doesn't each case call for various methods? I don't think it's the most likely theory, but it is not stupid.

No, not stupid. I did not say that, someone else did. I actually thought about this when I first read about this story, but immediate family is notified when someone goes into the witness protection program(they don't tell them where). The only why they would not tell her family is if she went into the program to be protected against her own family(not likely).

who among us believes it more likely someone premeditated her disappearance rather than a random murder?

is it possible that she was killed "accidently" in Amherst by someone in a fit of rage?

propaganda firetruck wrote:

According to questionable sources, Maura mentioned to Fred that she was in trouble and was afraid for her safety. Maybe she was being followed. This would help to explain the two accidents in a three day period. Both, being afraid or being run off the road may result in an accident.

I have often thought this might explain all of her car accidents too. But I have never heard that Maura told Fred she was fearing for her safety, that is new to me.
If my daughter told me that she feared for her safety and she had just totaled my car because someone was following her, I would have NEVER left her side! I don't think Fred, who cared deeply for his daughter, would have either.

On the wikipedia page it states the following:

Sunday, February 8, 2004 4:49 AM - Maura calls her boyfriend, who is stationed in Oklahoma, from her father's cell phone.

Sometime after this she is dropped off at school, and there is not much account for what happened the rest of the day. Most of the searches and emails from her computer could have been done by anyone. Sunday morning may have been the last time anyone saw her. Most of the witness accounts following this are questionable at best.

wikipedia site also says:

4:00 PM or earlier - Maura goes to an ATM and withdraws $280 from her account. Video surveillance footage shows her to be alone. Her bank account is left nearly empty. She is due to receive paychecks from her job in the coming days.
4:00 PM or earlier - Maura purchases $35-$40 in alcohol while still in Amherst, Massachusetts. Video surveillance footage shows her to be alone.

TWO videos. Is this incorrect? Someone on this forum has stated as a FACT that there is only ONE video. Who is right, who is wrong?

check out the key words in this phrase from wikipedia:
4:00 PM or later - Maura apparently leaves Amherst, Massachusetts and likely heads up Interstate 91 north.

"apparently" and "likely," but no one knows for sure she ever left Amherst. Isn't it likely that she disappears from Amherst on Sunday, but her car is found in NH on Monday? Depends on what evidence you believe in. Isn't it possible that the existence of video evidence was fabricated in order to suggest that Maura was alive and in Amherst on Monday?

what a twisted web.

Sara wrote:

<quoted text>
I have never heard that Maura told Fred she was fearing for her safety, that is new to me.

It has been stated on more than one occassion on this forum that Fred says Maura expressed to him a fear for her safety. Reasons for this fear have only been speculated.

propaganda firetruck wrote:

who among us believes it more likely someone premeditated her disappearance rather than a random murder?
is it possible that she was killed "accidently" in Amherst by someone in a fit of rage?

Sure, she may have been killed "accidently" in Amherst. Or maybe she had driven past the Rt. 112 curve a bit and someone with a small front end loader with a clam shell on the back, who had and limited peripheral vision, backed into her while clearing his driveway? It can happen. Right there on Rt. 112. And that's a fact. With no agenda, other than to demonstrate an open mind.

Just to