Where is MAURA MURRAY

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
Galleries are one of my natural habitats, if I lived near Amherst I would definitely hit every gallery in town, thus combining business with pleasure. It is probably the only way to get the info, although with the current HIPAA laws people may be reluctant to share this information.

Galleries sometimes do not stay in business for a long time. Other galleries are galleries in a less than conventional sense - regardless of how conventional or unconventional are the contents of the gallery - or venue.


And some galleries are still very much in business, but not exactly in the same form as they were in, say, 2004.

But if you knew someone who had worked in a certain gallery...

The Web Whisperer wrote:

umass Hamden art gallery

So prove it by identifying whether or not the work of a specific African American artist was displayed at the time of Maura's disappearance. If not displayed, was the art still held, in one form or another, within the gallery? If you know the identity of the gallery, as you imply, then you will know this information. Please supply the artist's initials. Thank you.

Believe it or not, but there are a lot - a LOT - of people in the Amherst area who WORK in the Amherst area. Isn't that amazing?

And, believe it or not, many of these people who work in the Amherst area also LIVE in the Amherst area. Or nearby. And have for many years. Some were born here. Many went to high school together. They belong to local clubs, participate in local events, have a large network of local friends.

And believe it or not, these people actually TALK with one another. About a lot of different things.

Some of them even work for the area's largest employer. Imagine that!

The Web Whisperer wrote:

Oh Mr Beagle you are so wrong

And you are so cwafty.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
My dear Firecat,
I've never represented a bad person, just people who did bad things, and they were never guilty of the bad things they were accused of.
OK, so I'm stretching the truth a little bit.
Well, maybe a big bit.
Well, maybe ...

LOL. I think we should give juries these judge it icons. That'd be fun....

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
He never said in front of a jury - he said when he met them.
Full moon or what. Interesting - how people fixate on twisting words rather than actually Maura......... I didn't realise this before . I guess niave and thinking people were always here really looking - and an occassional riddle from Beagle - which I do enjoy every now and then.. Who is Karma - can't beat that one.. or scientist or not even a scientologist.. but... I do see little pieces that are hashed over that were just tid bits of a post that really are nothing to argue over.......... but dang.. there is a pattern and by usually the same people.. wow. i missed it

Dawn.....that was humour.....

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.

The fact remains that the public doesn't have a right to any of that information.

Do you have the right to know where *I* work? Not unless I tell you. So why do people think they have an automatic right to know where Maura worked? Just because she's gone missing, her ENTIRE life becomes fair game for the curious public, no matter how good, or how ill, their intention?

It doesn't work like that.

I believe that Maura's father DOES know the name of the gallery where she works. I don't know that for a fact, but I'm pretty sure he does. If he, LE, or the PIs decide that it's a useful and helpful piece of information for the public to have, they'll make it public. Until then, the public has to deal with getting what we get.

For the eight hundredth time.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>Actually, if you go about it the right way...

...you can do it without getting thrown off campus.

If you had a tape of how nervous Mr. Muscles in the uniform was, you might get the picture.(Ha, ha.) Body language speaks volumes. So does unnecessarily excessive and alarmed denial. If you wait for the right moment to ask the right person the right questions, you might get some useful answers. Even if all the answers are not in the usual form.

But, of course, why worry about details like this when you can absurdly try - and fail - to twist clearly non-homophobic remarks into gay bashing remarks.

Your tracks are clear enough.

459 Russell St. Hadley MA.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact remains that the public doesn't have a right to any of that information.
Do you have the right to know where *I* work? Not unless I tell you. So why do people think they have an automatic right to know where Maura worked? Just because she's gone missing, her ENTIRE life becomes fair game for the curious public, no matter how good, or how ill, their intention?
It doesn't work like that.
I believe that Maura's father DOES know the name of the gallery where she works. I don't know that for a fact, but I'm pretty sure he does. If he, LE, or the PIs decide that it's a useful and helpful piece of information for the public to have, they'll make it public. Until then, the public has to deal with getting what we get.
For the eight hundredth time.

And for the 801st time... Certain LE agencies, such as Haverhill PD and NHSP might be trusted to perform an honest investigation, but some LE cannot be trusted. The PIs most emphatically cannot be trusted. It's not that the PIs (not in NH) are POSSIBLY dishonest. They ARE dishonest.

But because you don't live anywhere nearby, that fact alone makes you an expert on all this.

**********

Firecat asks, "So why do people think they have an automatic right to know where Maura worked?"

Answer: 1) Because Maura is missing. 2) Innocent people have been viewed, with no restraint, by vigilantes, acting under the guidance of PIs, as suspicious and put through hell. 3)Most people don't want another disappearance to happen.

The fact is, if Maura Murray was abducted, then her abductor could almost certainly have been found by now and sucessfully prosecuted. LE does not need to look for a needle in a haystack. And LE does not need to wait forever for someone to say the incriminating words they're waiting to hear. It's not like that.

Private investigators have deliberately mislead the public and mostly likely have mislead LE. I have talked with them face to face more than once.

If LE (not including Haverhill PD and NHSP) cannot be trusted, then it's time some information became public. In the form of a book. And that's exactly what's going to happen. Then we'll see who's telling the truth.

As Whiston said, this case goes way beyond unusual.

paris wrote:

oops, wasn't going to elaborate but might as well. Did Butch wear glasses and did he call home to report the accident to Barbara so she could call it in? She did say he saw the accident and he wasn't home yet.....?

hi Paris, I think if you check the grafton log, there is no mention that he (SBD) was not home yet. It is curious why he was not home, as Haverhill called almost immediately after receiving the call from Hanover. When Hanover called SBD was not in (or would not come to phone, and wife answered phone and gave the information, he saw the accident and do not know where the girl is.

Hanover's calls are being witheld, as per refusal of the DA's office request to release the information. So in effect we do not know if the SBD called Hanover or if his wife did, nor what was said, only the part that was relayed to Haverhill and quoted in the Grafton county logs.

to divert a bit, SBD said he was off the bus and checked the car out, he said he did not get off the bus, so it is a tad confusing what he did. The neighbour Marotte stated that he backed his bus ALL the way up the driveway and stayed on his bus A LONG TIME, SBD states that he went immediately into the house told his wife and mother about the accident, and called police. The circuits were busy (not confirmed, only stated in Grafton log as per Hanover, busy for 10-25 minutes)

SBD states after making the call, he went outside and the police had already arrived? Since the police arrived at 1946, and the call from Haverhill to the SBD's house occured at 1943, go figure making any sense of why the SBD was not in the house when Haverhill called back. Something is wrong here.

The mention of having seen the accident by the wife of the SBD is curious, as the SBD states that Maura was only visible. Seeing the airbag deployed says the person was there at the time of the accident as the airbags deflate immediately!

Yet allegedly the person in the car was smoking previously as stated by FAith. So one minute you are smoking and five minutes later when the SBD came along suddenly the airbag is in your face!

Also, if the airbag had deployed, you back your car up, and after 200 lbs of pressure in your face you pull out a cigarette? You would be lucky to know where your lips were on your face after such a blow.

If the person was face down in the airbag resting on the steering wheel after 5 minutes (when the SBD allegedly came along) doesn't make sense unless you are injured, or hidding one's face. If you are hidding your face why get out of the car to give someone a closer look?

Also, the SBD stated repeatedly that he was no more than 15 feet near Maura! So how is this possible if he got out of the bus and checked out the car? Also, in the dark, how good a look do you get of someone 15 feet away?!

Yes it would be good to know if the SBD wore glasses, he must have passed eye examine test as he was a bus driver. One wonders also if he had diabetis as he is a large man, the reason as this disease drastically affects one's eyesight, also the age of 58 says your vision has likely diminished somewhat and at night it is more apparent.

Also wonder about the acuity of other eyes wathcing the accident site, how well did the witnesses see?

What I find compelling is that the DA's office will not release the 911/dispatch call from
Hanover, presumably because it is evidentiary?!!!

Sorry to jump all over the place however, I find the witnesses statements to be all over the place?

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
The defamation, slander, libel and character assassination of SBD by FIT was in actual fact, obscene, extreme, ongoing, continuous and in my opinion actionable. FIT has done a terrible injustice not only to SBD but has no doubt influenced others to think twice before becoming Good Samaritons.

His lies make him the author of his own misfortune, let it be a byword to others who try to help to keep their stories straight. No one slandered him, he slandered himself. He refused to set matters straight with Healy who visited him in Florida, his chance to vindicate himself.

A good smaritan does not lie.

She was drunk, she wasn't drunk

he got off the bus
he did not get off the bus
he checked out the car for damage
he was no more than 15 feet near to the girl
we went straight home
witness says he stayed on his bus a long time

he called 911 at 1943
he was not in at 1943 when Haverhill called back
to confirm information
airbags deployed in face and could only see her from lips up
he got a real good look at her
other witness state man smoking a cigarette
he was a former police office, not true

any discerning person including a child would have trouble with his varying statements

police refuse to comment on his statements, therefore the problem of his veracity is pepetuated by the police. Also police are witholding the information from the 911 to Hanover.

Suzanne: If Maura was your daughter, how well would his statements sit with you, not too well I would venture. I'd have had his butt in court in a heart beat.

He is lucky not to be charged with obstruction of justice, it is a criminal offense to lie in an investigation.

Private investigators state that he has not been truthful. It is unlikely that he harmed Maura but as far as a reliable witnesses, he is not.

His stories can not all be put off to BAD reporting, which there is no lack of..

paris wrote:

Doesn't anyone recall how Butch sang the twilight zone song when asked where Maura went to then? That's all I was referring to. Geez, nazi loving hateful person,~ sorry, that's not me.

Yes recall this clearly but take no offense Paris, just speed read on by.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
Just curious. Where have you arrived Peri because it sure seems like you're on the same road with the same people and the same stale old scenerios that haven't helped in over 5 years. Just look at your post # 16304. It could have been taken off the old MM forum.
The people that tried to help Maura that night have had every word they said picked to pieces for years. They've been picked to pieces so much there's not much left to pick apart so my question is how many more years are you going to pick their words and them apart before moving off the corner of BHR and 112? Seems it's you and a few others that are stuck in the past.

Suck with the information available, yupe will not let it go, and likely wrote the same words on all the forums about Maura. It is what it is.

Just don't read what I say, because you can already guess what it is, at least I'm not changing my story, or picking information from out in left field. It is what it is....

Benjamin Franklyne wrote:

Peri - which one of the Westmans are lied?

Never said they lied, not once. Obviously the Westman's have a difference of opinion of what they perceived, and there were three other people in the house as well as Tim and Faith.

They have not told untruths that I am aware of,
just eyesight and perceptional differences between two people.

Stating also the difference of what was reported to 911, and what the police report state, Faith say the car came to rest in the Westbound lane, Smith's report does not indicate this. Did the 911 operator make a mistake, or did Faith, re: Westbound vs. Eastbound lane where the car was found. Faith stated to 911 that the car was in the Westbound ditch.

So either the 911 operator made a mistake in notation, perception, or Faith made a mistake about the car being in the Westbound lane.

If the car was in the Westbound lane ditch and backed up to the Eastbound side, Smith's report is worthless as evidence.

Marotte stated the car backed up.

So just trying to figure if 911 operator made a mistake, Faith made a mistake, or if Smith witheld evidence and gave a faulty report (one for the public).

Can't make any sense out of the information. I do not believe that the Westman's lied. If I said something to this effect, never meant to, just to point out the confusion which is MOST relivant.

If the car was in the Westbound lane, when was it moved, obviously after Faith called. Smith report does not indicate the car ever being in the Westbound lane.

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you Peri for the full admission of what FIT did to Pike !!!!! What was Pike's crime? Pike wanted to look at Amherst and my God how you all hated him for that. Pike was a highly intelligent, thoughtful man in one of the caring professions (was he a social worker) and how you guys beat up on him. Why ? Because FM did not want Amherst looked at. Why?

He was just plain nasty when anyone did not agree with him, I and others did look at Amherst and continue to do so. I think also we should look at West Point, I FEEL that this might be the source of Maura's meltdown and the early morning call.

I think looking at West Point and Amherst is very relivant, that that does not move us away from the accident scene in Haverhill.

459 Russell St. Hadley MA.

what is the release date for the book?

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>Convict, indeed. Just look at the results of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. And those who led Nader's campaign in the SunBiz state.

Take a guess who I voted for in 2000, Beagle?
Not Bush.
Not Nader.
Your point being?
This having what, precisely, to do with Maura?