Where is MAURA MURRAY

anyquestion, you're exactly right. There are so few facts, we need to do everything we can to establish more.
You are correct - and it's often overlooked - that we have no positive, credible identification of Maura in NH. There is one and only one apparent, recorded "eyewitness" to Maura's presence in NH - the SBD, who gave innumerable and widely varying accounts of that night, as well as claiming to be
"former LE."

We don't know for a fact that Maura's car was not stolen in Amherst (or elsewhere) and abandoned in NH.

The last place that Maura was seen for sure was in Amherst.

It appears that something had happened in her life that was upsetting to her. We do not know for a fact the degree of her upset or its cause - trying to determine a cause for her stress is pure speculation.

It is taken as a "fact" that her supervisor knew that Maura was extremely upset, but we have no way of knowing whether that was merely the supervisor's opinion and classification and the degree to which it is correct if at all.

I think it's been established as most nearly a fact that the Saturn, contrary to Smith's opinion, did not sustain the damage it did by impact with a snowbank, tree or trees, or anything other than a sharply angular, heavy object.

What else do we know that isn't hearsay or conjecture?

anyquestion wrote:

sneaking. snaking to Maine, I doubt it!! Remember. she may not have left Amhearst...BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT HER CAR LANDED IN GRAFTON COUNTY! We need to pay attention to facts and stop being LED ELSEWHERE!! Come on folks, we are continually being lead astray.

Yes, you're right. Maura would have been much better off driving a near broken down Saturn after dark through rush hour traffic on Rt. 2 to I-495, where 80 mph is often a standard speed. That makes sense. Why didn't I think of that?

sophie bean wrote:

What does Frank Kelly's right to carry a gun have to do with the search for Maura?

Well... if you live in Haverhill, then it just might be considered a public relations issue. His wild and drunken-like stream of invective may have been, in Frank's mind, directed to a very few guilty people, but the image it conjured up in the minds of innocent, harmless people in Haverhill was not likely one of "let's work together." Such imprecision and bad judgment, not to mention his totally unprofessional behavior, does nothing to recommend him.

Personally, I have seen a drunk, off-duty cop put a snubby right in the face of someone he didn't like simply - and only - because the guy's skin was a little darker than everyone else's in town. It's sort of an experience I won't forget.

Frank Kelly's entire outburst probably did not lead many strangers to think Frank is a guy who can control himself. Local people in any small town would look at you, Sophie, together with Frank, and wonder why on earth they would want anything to do with people like you. Innocent people don't like being stomped on and humiliated and put in the same boat as the guilty. And that's just what such an rant by Frank accomplished. Anybody who might have had valuable information wasn't exactly encouraged by Frank's behavior. Of course, maybe that was his point.

And you do nothing better than to make sure the same tone set by Frank continues.(Maybe you are Frank, who knows in an online venue like this?) If you had your way, you'd burn all Haverhill to the ground looking for a phantom serial killer only because Fred's driverless car was discovered there. Maura's daddy's car is in Haverhill, so burn down the town.

SoB, Haverhill does not have the Bubonic Plague. A Saturn broke down there about four years ago. Its police force is not controlled by the Devil. The daughter of the Saturn's owner is missing. That's it. No reason to burn down the whole town!

Obviously, Frank should carry a gun as part of his occupation. Anyone who talks like him probably feels it's a good idea anyway. By contrast, I do not even own a gun, much less carry one, so if an abductor wants to silence me in person for what I've said on this board, he knows where to find me. I should be easy pickings. Whether it's a smart idea or a dumb one, it's more than I see anyone else doing. I'll offer every kind of theory I can think of if it brings the guilty to my door.

The gun talk reminds me of an argument I once had with a friend's friend. She said she always carried a 2 inch .357 in her purse. This ain't exactly the South Bronx around here. I told her the only reason she carried was to further the fantasy in her own mind that someone might actually find her worth attacking. And that's the truth for most people who carry without any other valid reason.

sophie bean wrote:

anyquestion, you're exactly right. There are so few facts, we need to do everything we can to establish more.
You are correct - and it's often overlooked - that we have no positive, credible identification of Maura in NH. There is one and only one apparent, recorded "eyewitness" to Maura's presence in NH - the SBD, who gave innumerable and widely varying accounts of that night, as well as claiming to be
"former LE."
We don't know for a fact that Maura's car was not stolen in Amherst (or elsewhere) and abandoned in NH.
The last place that Maura was seen for sure was in Amherst.
It appears that something had happened in her life that was upsetting to her. We do not know for a fact the degree of her upset or its cause - trying to determine a cause for her stress is pure speculation.
It is taken as a "fact" that her supervisor knew that Maura was extremely upset, but we have no way of knowing whether that was merely the supervisor's opinion and classification and the degree to which it is correct if at all.
I think it's been established as most nearly a fact that the Saturn, contrary to Smith's opinion, did not sustain the damage it did by impact with a snowbank, tree or trees, or anything other than a sharply angular, heavy object.
What else do we know that isn't hearsay or conjecture?

Well miracles never cease! Sophie and I actually agree on something! Quite a lot, actually. At least one of us has the grace to say, "You're right. Very nice summary. Can we build on it a way that might bring progress?"

I can only guess her reply.

"Well... if you live in Haverhill, then it just might be considered a public relations issue. His wild and drunken-like stream of invective may have been, in Frank's mind, directed to a very few guilty people, but the image it conjured up in the minds of innocent, harmless people in Haverhill was not likely one of "let's work together." Such imprecision and bad judgment, not to mention his totally unprofessional behavior, does nothing to recommend him."

So you know for a fact that there are "a very few" (how many does it take?) "guilty" people in Haverhill, and you think that it is not acceptable or understandable to be angry at the perpetrators?

I thought that you "only" had a "secondary interest" in Maura's case?

I'm sure that yesterday, you ranted about the need to stay focused and not get distracted.

Have you forgotten your questions about where Maura raced so soon? What about the architects? What about the copper wire?

Why is it that each and every time I or anyone else attempts to re-focus attention on facts, we get subjected to a new rant and distraction from you?

By the way, I'm Sophie Bean here, and only Sophie Bean, as I was on the MMM forum.

Oh, thank you for clarifying that Mr. Kelly's legal right to carry a gun is of no concern to anyone here but you, and that your "concern" is as logical as the rest of your "theories."

BeagleBart wrote:

Frank Kelly's entire outburst probably did not lead many strangers to think Frank is a guy who can control himself. Local people in any small town would look at you, Sophie, together with Frank, and wonder why on earth they would want anything to do with people like you. Innocent people don't like being stomped on and humiliated and put in the same boat as the guilty. And that's just what such an rant by Frank accomplished. Anybody who might have had valuable information wasn't exactly encouraged by Frank's behavior. Of course, maybe that was his point.

I will just put this out here for emphasis, to let people read it again. Remove the name Frank and substitute any name you wish. See where THAT takes you, friends.

BeagleBart wrote:

And you do nothing better than to make sure the same tone set by Frank continues.(Maybe you are Frank, who knows in an online venue like this?) If you had your way, you'd burn all Haverhill to the ground looking for a phantom serial killer only because Fred's driverless car was discovered there. Maura's daddy's car is in Haverhill, so burn down the town.
Haverhill does not have the Bubonic Plague. A Saturn broke down there about four years ago. Its police force is not controlled by the Devil. The daughter of the Saturn's owner is missing. That's it. No reason to burn down the whole town!

Who's the one who makes sure the tone set by Frank continues? Who's the one who keeps bringing it up? Your bitter vitriol towards sophie (and occasionally others, but mostly sophie) is unwarranted and unhelpful. In fact, it only leads ME towards the first paragraph.

BeagleBart wrote:

<quoted text>
Well miracles never cease! Sophie and I actually agree on something! Quite a lot, actually. At least one of us has the grace to say, "You're right. Very nice summary. Can we build on it a way that might bring progress?"

Yes. At least she did have enough grace to say that. And we all saw what YOUR reply was. Now can we please get back to work?

sophie bean wrote:

Why is it that each and every time I or anyone else attempts to re-focus attention on facts, we get subjected to a new rant and distraction from you?

Folks, this is called projection. Sophie appears to take her instructions from David Miscavige.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. At least she did have enough grace to say that. And we all saw what YOUR reply was. Now can we please get back to work?

My mistake. I thought you knew how to read. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. Or if you feel compelled to read, just ignore it.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>Who's the one who makes sure the tone set by Frank continues? Who's the one who keeps bringing it up? Your bitter vitriol towards sophie (and occasionally others, but mostly sophie) is unwarranted and unhelpful. In fact, it only leads ME towards the first paragraph.

Unwarranted vitriol? If calling a spade a spade - i.e., Sophie - I am guilty. And proud of it. I have asked her three times to lay down the sword and she has refused. She cannot get enough of argument because she knows it keeps people from contributing to this board.

I said something several weeks ago that she flipped out over. I apologized. And I was even a little funny, just to defuse and show I could get along. She came back even more ferociously. Again, I patiently tried to explain that nothing offensive was intended. I was very nice about it. Wham! Sohpie comes back again with an even bigger sledge hammer. So I tried very nicely one last time to explain a very simple thing that got way out of control. Wham! Wham! Wham!

Three times, she's out. There is no appeasing her. There is not one thing I can say that will meet with her approval. Today I asked the same question Euro asked, almost side by side with his question. Sophie's response to him was pleasant. Her response to me the opposite. She has set the tone for our little war right from the start, not me. But I am not backing off. If she can dish it out, she better be able to take it. Same for you.

And just so no one thinks I have an identity to hide, I say for the fourth time... I am Alden H. Olson. I live at 48 Brookside Ave. in Greenfield MA. I don't see anyone else here as transparent as that.

Not only will I say who I am and where I live, I'll also say again that I do not own a gun, I do not carry a gun, I do not wave a gun, and I do not write things like...

"The truth is sometimes hidden, lies sit on the surface and fade with time allowing the truth to shine though."

Is this Frank's James Joyce imitation? "Portrait of the detective as an old wash-up?"

(Poster)'s entire outburst probably did not lead many strangers to think (poster) is a guy who can control himself. Local people in any small town would look at (poster), and wonder why on earth they would want anything to do with people like (poster). Innocent people don't like being stomped on and humiliated and put in the same boat as the guilty. And that's just what such an rant by (poster) accomplished. Anybody who might have had valuable information wasn't exactly encouraged by (poster)'s behavior. Of course, maybe that was his point.

Res ipso loquitor.

Manus manum lavat.

For those who didn't have umpteen years of Latin in parochial school, I'll try English: you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Perhaps sophie is more willing to respond politely to Euro's questions because she knows she and Euro have a chance in hell of engaging in fruitful dialogue without the constant battling over who started the attack. Generally an apology that is heartfelt is followed by a change in behaviour, not reversion to the same tactics that warranted the apology. Yes, you've invited sophie to lay down the sword (I presume you mean yesterday's apology, which I didn't realise was so all-encompassing, and encourage and applaud it if it was!) but with your other hand, you have picked it up again when she didn't immediately respond favourably. Perhaps it only reinforces to her that she was right not to trust (I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this view, simply stating that perhaps she sees it this way.)

And once again I cannot help but notice we have gotten drawn off course.

Is there a particular reason, Beagle, you are now asking a line of questions about Maine? Is there a theory you're working with, or are you simply trying to cast a wider geographical net? And I'm curious--what do architecture firms have to do with anything? Those questions sometimes seem very specific, as if you were looking for very specific answers, and I find them mystifying. Am I not wearing my tin hat properly? Perhaps if I adjust it, the signal would come in better and I would see the direction you are trying to take??

You have a tin foil hat, too?

I find sophie beans anger toward NH (I am from NH)
overboard. The same with her anger towards BeagleBart. It is sharp and cutting and frankly unnecessary. I like sophie bean. She never gives up her quest for Maura. Just lose the anger. No one in the area will want to help to find Maura with rants such as hers. No one likes to be belittled trying to help. MHO

You offered to share it, just yesterday. So, only a piece. But then, I thought that's the way they worked best.

Oops, that's obviously in response to Beagle.

BeagleBart, I will be honest with who I am also. I am PatriciaD on the now gone MMM site.

Sure, la piece de resistance, I suppose.

All right, but I use Alcoa, not that cheap stuff.