Where is MAURA MURRAY

sophie bean wrote:

<quoted text>

Therefore, a new government agency where one already exists to serve precisely the same function is REDUNDANT.

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said LE has a responsibility to inform us of anything. But surely her family knows the name of the gallery. And Dawn and someone else from here tried to find out but got nowhere.

Judged:

1

Dawn wrote:

I am tending to think the full moon is in Leo.
am I right fellow leo snowy? this is a weird one. even at work people are on edge.
I could use a riddle.
Or actually - did anyone save all those links that OMO/Beagle posted about Chaput? I would like to go over those now.
Hope everyone is safe and sound........ sorry If I have been a bit defensive......... they are doing another round of layoffs and we are on pins and needles. off topic..but DAMN scary

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
I did try but didn't get very far.. I don't think it would be that hard. If I lived there. I would just walk in casually and ask .
If I ever make it out there......... doubt it. But If I do.. I will plan to make to Amherst and Haverhill if in the area.

Benjamin Franklyne wrote:

<quoted text>
Ahhhhhh!

Mason wrote:

"WW, stated on this forum that he [SBD] was likely told to change his story regarding the driver of the Saturn's sobriety, however she refuses to elaborate on her statement."
As I've said before, police know better than to tell a witness to change his story. That is a crime in every jurisdiction and I doubt there is a police officer in the country that doesn't know that.
On the other hand, witnesses generally want to help LE and to varying degrees they will pick up on non-verbal clues and adjust their recall to comport with what they think the police want to hear or expect to hear. They don't even think that's a form of lying. Yet, they do it and this behavioral characteristic has been identified as one of the causes of mistaken eyewitness identifications and wrongful convictions of innocent people.
The SBD appears to be guilty of adjusting his recollection to please, or not offend the person asking questions. He's probably so mixed-up now that he isn't sure what's true and what isn't. This is bad news for everyone because he is the only witness who saw and spoke to the driver.
In a way, though, he's more honest than most witnesses because he has admitted that he isn't certain. Witnesses who are certain often are mistaken. I prefer the former to the latter.
We have accept his uncertainty and rely on the rest of the evidence to reach a conclusion. As I've also said before, we should pose the question this way.
If Maura wasn't the person behind the wheel, who was? We don't necessarily have to name that person to answer the question, but we do have to identify that person by function. Was she a co-conspirator assisting another person to abduct Maura, for example?
Therefore, to identify this person by function, we need a theory and, to be viable, a theory must be consistent with the known evidence. The PIs are working on a theory involving a Maura abduction from the scene of a previous accident within 3 miles of the accident past the Weathered Barn. This theory will not fly unless the damage sustained by the Saturn could not have occurred at the site where it was found. The PIs say they have an expert who says there must have been a previous accident. The police do not agree.
Without photographs and measurements from the accident scene, we lack sufficient information to reach a conclusion. We have opinions and beliefs, but we cannot say with a high degree of certainty that they are anything more than guesses at this point.
And, so it goes ...

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
Also know her her friends, acquaintances, colleagues, co-workers. We can't even find out the name of the gallery Maura worked at.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Granted, they're trying to impress a jury......

Mason wrote:

Well, I've suspected for a long time that Sophie Bean hates Ralph Nader and now I have proof.
Her own words convict her far more eloquently than anything I could ever say.
Grab the children and protect their ears!
She said,(gasp)
someone has a "neaderthalish mindset."

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Wait, what? It's a FACT that I'd make a good Nazi? You don't know me at all, then, White Wash. Or are you referring to other parts of that post?
One of the simplest reasons I'd make a lousy Nazi is that I dislike following orders. Oh, and I also have this little thing known as a moral compass. I've worn the plastic handcuffs for participating in non-violent protest. Yesterday I taught a lesson on Mohandas K. Gandhi, for fooksake. A good Nazi? It would be laughable if it weren't so horribly, grossly offensive to so many people.

Judged:

3

3

3

Anne wrote:

FIT (what is that?) or MMM (what is that?)

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes and thank God for Defense Attorneys we all love to hate them but I know a young man who was imprisoned at age 18 for a crime he did not commit, he was released after 22 years in prison having spent over half his life in prison. The reason 1. Homophobic jury 2.Overzealous, lying, cheating prosecution 3. brain dead defense attorney.

Judged:

1

The Web Whisperer wrote:

It has NEVER been stated as a fact that FM did not want Amherst looked at. It might have been speculated by many that this is true, but it IS NOT TRUE. LE including The FBI and U-Mass Police have all the info about Amherst, Hanson, Haverhill, etc. You are not working with all the info required and ad-libbing the rest. It might fit but it isn't the true facts.

Judged:

2

1

1

sophie bean wrote:

"I'm sorry that you don't like being lied about" is still not an apology.
"I'm sorry that I said that about you without checking the source or having any idea if it was true" would be an apology, which has not been forthcoming to date.
You are correct in saying that you considered it an apology. However, the fact remains that the party wronged needs to feel that it is a genuine apology, and I do not.
Now, this is a forum about Maura Murray's disappearance, a subject which is clearly of no interest to you. Let me be the first to request that you tuck your little tail between your little legs and slink back to your usual haunts.

Mason wrote:

I've already said sexual preference is irrelevant.
It's a matter of personal choice and no one should be judged positively or negatively based on the choice they make.
End of subject.

The Web Whisperer wrote:

Oh Mr Beagle you are so wrong

Judged:

1

1

Mason wrote:

I don't believe homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, multiple sex partners, open relationships, cross-dressing, sex changes, or any other consenting sexual practices are relevant unless they formed part of a motive to harm Maura or they figured in her decision to leave Amherst. I haven't seen any evidence of that and do not suspect that I will.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't you point out that a different track coach assisted Maura to transfer mid-year into UMass? I've been thinking there were two coaches with one replacing the other after Maura stopped competing due to an injury that never really healed before she got too busy with nursing school. The more recent coach may not have known her.
Am I making any sense, or did I dream this up?
Fred