Where is MAURA MURRAY

Dawn,

You said,

"There isn't a place in the USA that is perfect."

What about Washington, DC?

Fred

Dawn wrote:
... In that short amount of time - car or on foot - she could not have been far. If it wasn't her - they could not have been far either.:-)

Advocator wrote:
Although ... if we accept that it was 7 minutes between the time the SBD last saw the girl at the car and the time CS arrived to find no girl at the car ... if Maura got a ride, in that 7 minutes she could have been about 3 miles away (if vehicle doing 25 mph), or 5 miles away (vehicle doing 35 mph), etc.

Whitewash wrote:
Who is lying this above Witness or the Police of Chief? Since Smith blew by him in Dark Hollow aka Rangers Station on RT 10. Call me stupid but I think he NOTED the time what do you all think? I personally think he isn't that stupid to know I could and would time that to Smith's arrival.

Dawn, according to the quote by Chief Williams which follows, Smith arrived around 7:30 (although the dispatch log says 7:46)…three minutes after FW called police at 7:29. So, if it was 3 minutes rather than 7 minutes would that mean that she was less than a mile and a half away…if she was in a car, Smith would have caught up…if she was on foot, surely she wouldn’t have gotten nearly that far…..

“Chief Williams told me that the first official on the scene was Sergeant Cecil Smith at about 7:30 that evening of February 9th. When Sergeant smith pulled up to the scene, Ms. Murray was gone, but had been observed about three minutes earlier by witnesses at or near the scene.”

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>
Quick, someone send Bill's wife a hacksaw! LOL!
.

Hehehehe!(because, of course, Bill's hacksaw is undoubtedly chained into his toolbox...)

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
well stated, Suzanne. some of the behaviors have carried over. i'm glad i've never seen the exact quotes...the insults waged against local residents that are often referenced. it would be upsetting.
the "good old days" have carried over here, too...the "welcoming" tradition, for example. you know, inclusion/exclusion...junior high stuff.
i've parked my ass here without a welcome (that's called 'weaseling' to the FIT), and don't do very well with absolutes and directives.

1. I've never heard the word "weaseling" used by anyone on the forum, old or new, until just now.

2. "welcoming" someone to a forum when they are a new poster IS GENERAL INTERNET FORUM ETIQUETTE. It is not unique, "inclusion/exclusion " behaviour meant to place someone in a caste system. When someone new walks into a room, do you ignore them, or do you look over and smile and say "hi" ?

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
You are wrong. There MOST DEFINITELY was a FIT opinion and I stated it above. FIT meant adhering to the party line, no dissenters allowed. Include in the above that I have already posted the whole bit about how evil the locals were to not allow Fred to search their property, turns out only one local ever complained.

Wow. I guess I wasn't part of the FIT then. This is not the Manchurian freaking Candidate, people. People have opinions of their own, and they speak them. I am not a follower by nature, and I CERTAINLY don't toe any party lines.

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
You are wrong. There MOST DEFINITELY was a FIT opinion and I stated it above. FIT meant adhering to the party line, no dissenters allowed. Include in the above that I have already posted the whole bit about how evil the locals were to not allow Fred to search their property, turns out only one local ever complained.

Oh my god. You are really something else. Where you online and active in the forum in 2004, 2005, 2006? Did you post there?

For the record....for the Nth time, and I'm getting tired of defending things I haven't said, or un-lumping myself from a group I've been put in that is not an accurate representation of the way things ACTUALLY WERE..... I have NEVER said anything bad about the people of NH as a whole. About the people of Haverhill. I have certainly never called anyone "evil" regarding this whole affair.

Where the hell, frankly, do you get off making THE EXACT SAME SORTS OF VITRIOLIC GENERALIZATIONS you accuse the so-called "FIT" of making, and deeming your generalizations appropriate simply because they're yours or you subscribe to them?

I can't believe I have to explain ethically consistent behaviour to someone who is allegedly an adult with critical thinking skills.

Let me explain in very simple terms, not because I am a "schoolmarm" but because YOU DO NOT SEEM TO BE GETTING IT lo these several dozen times I have attempted to explain it.

Theoretical scenario: You see a forum where a bunch of people seem to have similar opinions. You announce that they are all overgeneralizing and all toe the party line, that dissent is not allowed, that they are all badmouthing a certain group of people, calling them "evil" and that therefore they must all be like that.

On a second, related forum, you....GET THIS.....overgeneralize about THAT SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE and make nasty comments about them.

ARE YOU NOT SEEING THE HYPOCRISY?

If not, it's undoubtedly because you don't want to, because you seem to have an IQ somewhere above 100.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>Johnny Most would be proud!
"She dribbles. She shoots. She SCORES!"

Oops. Personal foul. No basket. Penalty shot allowed.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>Wow, you're more naive than I thought. Thanks for the tip.

No, you're just being intentionally obtuse.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
1. I've never heard the word "weaseling" used by anyone on the forum, old or new, until just now.
2. "welcoming" someone to a forum when they are a new poster IS GENERAL INTERNET FORUM ETIQUETTE. It is not unique, "inclusion/exclusion " behaviour meant to place someone in a caste system. When someone new walks into a room, do you ignore them, or do you look over and smile and say "hi" ?

1) weaseling is Anne's word. she wondered, out loud, how dual posters could be interested in two forum threads at once...threads that happen to sit side-by-side.

2) anytime you want to formally welcome me, i'll consider accepting the invitation.

Mason wrote:

Dawn,
You said,
"There isn't a place in the USA that is perfect."
What about Washington, DC?
Fred

Oh god, please don't. It hurts to laugh that hard....:)

WTF-the-original wrote:
<quoted text>

Things that were stated could very well still be true since we have no idea when or if Maura is missing because we have found nothing to indicate what happened to her or where it happened and if something did happen if it was by her own design or bad judgment.
I am really curious at what point does it no longer becomes NH LE’s fault and becomes Maura’s fault? I mean since so many are interested in assigning blame. If we find that she made it to Lincoln, is it still those officers fault that we don’t know where she is? What if she managed to get into the woods undetected to commit suicide or died accidentally, is that still their fault? At what point does any of this responsibility shift from everyone else to Maura?
You keep pitching them and I’ll keep hitting them.
Bill

***
i don't know where Suzanne captured your post from, Bill, but it really gets to the heart of the matter. i was about to go off on "blaming and finger-pointing" in my just-composed post to Sophie Bean...and here it is.
thanks, Bill.
thanks, Suzanne.
agree, wholeheartedly.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
1) weaseling is Anne's word. she wondered, out loud, how dual posters could be interested in two forum threads at once...threads that happen to sit side-by-side.
2) anytime you want to formally welcome me, i'll consider accepting the invitation.

1. I don't recall seeing that post. I stand corrected!

2. I didn't realise I had neglected to welcome you...in fact, you may have predated me on this forum. You are, of course, welcome as far as I'm concerned, though it is at this point rather a moot point for the simple fact that we've both been here for several hundred pages. If you desire a formal welcome from me, consider it extended.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you're just being intentionally obtuse.

Mutually exclusive terms. Two penalty shots.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
1. I don't recall seeing that post. I stand corrected!
2. I didn't realise I had neglected to welcome you...in fact, you may have predated me on this forum. You are, of course, welcome as far as I'm concerned, though it is at this point rather a moot point for the simple fact that we've both been here for several hundred pages. If you desire a formal welcome from me, consider it extended.

Leo's get their noses out of joint easily. I'm a friendly type...until....!!@
Thanks for the belated welcome. You predated me here, I think, but won't argue, for once. ;-)

If Maua Murray was abducted, the names and addresses of the five or six people most likely to have abducted her are quite available.

Does any appropriate agency or properly credentialed person want these names?

One person claims to be in public health.

Another is a lesbian who moved away.

Another is a local home owner.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
Leo's get their noses out of joint easily. I'm a friendly type...until....!!@
Thanks for the belated welcome. You predated me here, I think, but won't argue, for once. ;-)

Dunno, it all runs together after a while....I've always appreciated your posts, even when I don't agree with them. And your dog is adorable. I'm a sucker for big fuzzy dogs.

If Maura Murray was abducted from Massachusetts, does any appropriate person want to know who did it?

I'm not an "appropriate" person, and I don't care WHERE she was abducted from, you bet like I hell I want to know who did it.

Beagle wrote:

If Maura Murray was abducted from Massachusetts, does any appropriate person want to know who did it?

Are you wanting "appropriate persons" to respond to your post with an acknowledgment that they're interested?

Let's say that there are "appropriate persons" reading...which, I presume, you're referring to people in positions of authority to take the information and investigate it? Do you reallllyyyy think they're going to respond to you? That they're going to come on and say...."YES, we've been waiting for THIS!"???? We're persons of authority, give us the information, please!.....

Alden, won't happen. And you are more than intelligent enough to know this.

Come on........just say it. You know you want to. Put it out there.