Where is MAURA MURRAY

Sara wrote:

<quoted text>
Good morning ooOOoo,
Good point on hamstring injury. Made me think about how everyone saying that Maura ran every day, rain or shine. How could she run every day if she had this hamstring injury? I wonder when this injury came about and if it was healed enough for her to start running on a regular basis again. Anyone know the timeline of injury?

As I said, it's a nagging injury that takes time to heal completely. That doesn't mean that in the later stages of recovery, people can't--and, more importantly, don't--run on it. Maura was a serious runner. She more than likely (and this is strictly my opinion based on my knowledge of her, and my knowledge of myself and others as long-distance runners) got back to running as soon as humanly possible.

The injury, as I also said but perhaps not clearly, may have kept her from competing (especially if she was also pressed for time) but it may not have kept her from running. Her pace may have been affected, she may have been running more slowly than usual, she may not have wanted to overdo it by running at a competitive pace, but she may well still have been running on a modified schedule.

Does it mean that a possible lingering hamstring injury negates CW's story of seeing someone running down the road--or, more accurately, does this mean it cannot have been Maura? Certainly not, IMO.

Do I think that individual was likely Maura? I have no idea, and never have. But the hamstring issue does not affect my opinion one way or the other.

That was a really good question, actually. It never occurred to me, although maybe it was simply because I was assuming that she was at the tail end of the injury, from what I was told.(I think the injury was in the fall.)

FWIW, nursing students can and do compete on track and cross-country teams at their colleges. At least, they can and do at the college where I teach. I don't know how many of them do, or how crazy it makes their schedules (I would imagine it makes them utterly cringe-worthy, actually) but I know of at least a few who do.

Also, I don't know whether it's possible to do so while one is doing clinicals. I haven't really looked into the schedules of my students, though sometimes I can tell by the rings under their eyes and their huge cups of coffee propping them up in class.... :-)

FireCat wrote:

Also, I don't know whether it's possible to do so while one is doing clinicals. I haven't really looked into the schedules of my students, though sometimes I can tell by the rings under their eyes and their huge cups of coffee propping them up in class....:-)

Thanks Firecat. That makes sense if she was at the end of her injury.

It is spring here on the west........ the snow is melting. I hope this spring - when the snow melts and the new spring flowers spring up... there will be clue's/answers for the Murray's. 5 years is too long......... way tooo long to not have answers.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
As I said, it's a nagging injury that takes time to heal completely. That doesn't mean that in the later stages of recovery, people can't--and, more importantly, don't--run on it. Maura was a serious runner. She more than likely (and this is strictly my opinion based on my knowledge of her, and my knowledge of myself and others as long-distance runners) got back to running as soon as humanly possible.
The injury, as I also said but perhaps not clearly, may have kept her from competing (especially if she was also pressed for time) but it may not have kept her from running. Her pace may have been affected, she may have been running more slowly than usual, she may not have wanted to overdo it by running at a competitive pace, but she may well still have been running on a modified schedule.
Does it mean that a possible lingering hamstring injury negates CW's story of seeing someone running down the road--or, more accurately, does this mean it cannot have been Maura? Certainly not, IMO.
Do I think that individual was likely Maura? I have no idea, and never have. But the hamstring issue does not affect my opinion one way or the other.
That was a really good question, actually. It never occurred to me, although maybe it was simply because I was assuming that she was at the tail end of the injury, from what I was told.(I think the injury was in the fall.)
FWIW, nursing students can and do compete on track and cross-country teams at their colleges. At least, they can and do at the college where I teach. I don't know how many of them do, or how crazy it makes their schedules (I would imagine it makes them utterly cringe-worthy, actually) but I know of at least a few who do.

I wouldn't think a hamstring injury would stop an accomplished runner from running. Most practitioners will tell you that a soft tissue injury is yes, going to take a long time to heal, but as long as it takes to heal, it's important to still use the area. Hurts like he** at first but hurts even more if you stop using it. JMO but if Maura was truly travelling over an hour to each clinical, then doing an 8 hour day at the clinical, then travelling over an hour to return from the clinical, on top of studying and working two jobs, it's highly doubtful she was running much, epecially not competetive running. Not to mention Julie Lafreniere, the track coach, wasn't able to mentally establish Maura as being on the track team at the time of her disappearance.

Benjamin Franklyne wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
gvmeabrk - I believe - also indicated that she was at a loss to know how the person she saw could be ruled out as being Maura, because gvmeabrk had no information as to where the person she saw had come from and could not fathom how anyone could possibly determine that fundamental piece of information to adequately follow up on the lead and come to the conclusion you quote.
So while the FEELING that this has been checked on has been expressed, it also is not FACT that it was not Maura.
If it was her - there is reason to be concerned. I just keep an open mind to possibilities no matter how grim the evidence looks otherwise.
A fence has not been taken, thoughts have only been shared and I am obliged.

Benjamin Franklyne,

You are absolutely right there regarding the implications of the possible sighting of Maura by gvmeabrk.

Just consider this:

How on earth would it be at all possible for anyone, LE, PI´s, whatever, to state with any certainty that this girl was NOT Maura.
Granted, it may not have been Maura, but to emphatically purport that this could NOT have been Maura would be a most baffling conclusion to arrive at a long time after the observation was originally made by gvmeabrk.

The same obviously goes for the possible sighting of Maura in the Barton, VT, church on Fathers Day in 2005.
I simply refuse to believe that the mysterious "Raykel" can be unequivocally said NOT to have been Maura.
Checking this out weeks or even months after the possible sighting is simply beyond the capability of even the equivalents of Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot.
IMHO.

also.......... fight or flight - if that was her running that night - even with a broken leg - if you are in "fight or flight" regardless - if you feel you are in danger - our bodies can do lots of things that would normally hurt. We also don't know what kind of a head wound she could have had that could also play into not feeling pain. If your scared for what ever reason - you get strength ... solidiers/fire fighters do it all the time

Dawn wrote:

also.......... fight or flight - if that was her running that night - even with a broken leg - if you are in "fight or flight" regardless - if you feel you are in danger - our bodies can do lots of things that would normally hurt. We also don't know what kind of a head wound she could have had that could also play into not feeling pain. If your scared for what ever reason - you get strength ... solidiers/fire fighters do it all the time

fight or flight response could also apply to whatever was going on in Amherst---causing her to leave.

Eurobserver wrote:

<quoted text>

How on earth would it be at all possible for anyone, LE, PI´s, whatever, to state with any certainty that this girl was NOT Maura.
Granted, it may not have been Maura, but to emphatically purport that this could NOT have been Maura would be a most baffling conclusion to arrive at a long time after the observation was originally made by gvmeabrk.
The same obviously goes for the possible sighting of Maura in the Barton, VT, church on Fathers Day in 2005.
I simply refuse to believe that the mysterious "Raykel" can be unequivocally said NOT to have been Maura.
Checking this out weeks or even months after the possible sighting is simply beyond the capability of even the equivalents of Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot.
IMHO.

Well, if they were able to establish who the person in question WAS, they could say unequivocally it was not Maura. This may have been done (was there video at the Cumby's? Did they figure out who the man was and interview him? Interview the woman? Etc etc)

Is there some kind of standard therapy or training program for a hamstring injury? Thank you.

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>Most practitioners will tell you that a soft tissue injury is yes, going to take a long time to heal, but as long as it takes to heal, it's important to still use the area.

I always thought that a hamstring injury was a ligament injury? Not a soft tissue injury.

Anyone know for sure? Treatment would be radically different between soft tissue and ligament.

Still mellow

Mellow Yellow wrote:

<quoted text>
I always thought that a hamstring injury was a ligament injury? Not a soft tissue injury.
Anyone know for sure? Treatment would be radically different between soft tissue and ligament.
Still mellow

It depends on the individual injury....depends on what you did. Seriously. A "hamstring injury" covers a wide variety of ailments. Some muscular, some ligamental, some tendon, some might even technically be iliotibial band related. But usually it refers to one of the three major muscles known as "hamstring group" and for god's sake don't ask me to name them because I have no freakin' clue. One of the nurses could tell you.

I assume she pulled the muscle, as that's the common thing for runners to do.

Sorry, Beagle, no drug conspiracy theory LOL. Mostly just ice, anti-inflammatory drugs such as Advil, elevating the leg, rest, gentle stretching as prescribed once the initial inflammation has gone away. Just like any other pulled muscle.

Mellow Yellow wrote:

<quoted text>
I always thought that a hamstring injury was a ligament injury? Not a soft tissue injury.
Anyone know for sure? Treatment would be radically different between soft tissue and ligament.
Still mellow

This one I know. It's actually a muscle injury - basically the bulk of muscles on the back of your thigh. Treatment generally would be phys. therapy (unless a minor strain) and that would be strengthening and stretching exercises for the most part. I've also had ultrasound heat done for this type of injury to the muscle. If the muscle is really contracting (spasm-ing) they might do some electrical stimulation to help ease or help the muscle relax.
The Queen of Muscle/Soft Tissue Chronic Problems (QMSTCP for short) at your service!:>)

ahhhh - sorry FC - typing at the same time you answered!

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
It depends on the individual injury....depends on what you did. Seriously. A "hamstring injury" covers a wide variety of ailments. Some muscular, some ligamental, some tendon, some might even technically be iliotibial band related. But usually it refers to one of the three major muscles known as "hamstring group" and for god's sake don't ask me to name them because I have no freakin' clue. One of the nurses could tell you.
I assume she pulled the muscle, as that's the common thing for runners to do.

Muscles, tendons, ligaments...all soft tissue

Mellow Yellow wrote:

<quoted text>
I always thought that a hamstring injury was a ligament injury? Not a soft tissue injury.
Anyone know for sure? Treatment would be radically different between soft tissue and ligament.
Still mellow

copied from internet:
Meanwhile, women's hamstring muscles (on the back of the thigh) respond more slowly than in men to injury. The hamstring muscles normally protect the tibia from sliding too far forward. Women's sluggish hamstring response may allow the tibia to slip forward, straining the ACL. Other studies suggest that women's ACLs may be weakend by the effects of the female hormone estrogen. Taken together, these factors may explain why female athletes have a higher risk of ACL tears.

another article:
Strengthening of the hamstrings is often recommended following injury and reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. It has been suggested that hamstrings activity stabilizes the knee and reduces anterior cruciate ligament load during weight-bearing flexion; however, the effects of hamstrings cocontraction on the kinematics and mechanics of the normal knee have not been assessed at physiological load levels. The aim of this study was to determine whether the addition of hamstrings force affects knee rotations, translations, and joint and quadriceps force during flexion with loads at physiological levels applied to the muscles and joints.

Comments:
Injury of Hamstring muscles affect, ligaments, and soft tissues, in the area of the injury and
usually affect the knee.

Our Queen of soft tissue injury has given us the forms of treatment for such and injury. Ice, heat, ultasound, expercises, passive range of motion, etc., and running would be a no no, also water exercises, and a passive range of motion exerciser machine (one used when knee is operated on) would help rehabilitate the muscles, and ligaments and avoid further weight bearing injury.

p.s. there is oodles of information available on the net regarding such injuries

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, if they were able to establish who the person in question WAS, they could say unequivocally it was not Maura. This may have been done (was there video at the Cumby's? Did they figure out who the man was and interview him? Interview the woman? Etc etc)

Eurobserver: When a private dectective states that they have checked out a certain matter, one
presumes that they collect and investigate the information, obviously this was done, and we also know that law enforcement checked out these leads, as they said so in the media, articles have been posted. Well I and others can question this of course, however, law enforcement nor the private detectives believe she has run away or being held captive. If she was being held captive, the FBI would be involved, as it would be a kidnapping, and one that would involve two or more states.

I of course have to believe this, as police and detectives have their certainty, and I and others are not privy how they come about this information. Also, lets face it, if it was a suspected kidnapping, law enforcement would say so
and never any mention of a kidnapping.

I do not wish to undermind anyone, it is not about underminding what someone thinks they saw, but if law enforcement and the private detectives do not believe this is the scenario, then I choose to go with the information from those in the know, per se.

I myself saw someone who looked identical to Maura, in 2006, and at a place owned by Americans
from New England,(family of original new england planters) who operate a winery, and I live two farms down from the property. I would have sworn on a stack of bibles it was Maura, but that doesn't change the fact, I was wrong. I was as certain if not more so than anyone else who claims to have felt they saw Maura as I had already been searching for what happened to her for 2 years, and was very familiar with her appearance.

It is a wonderful thing that individuals come forward to law enforcement with their information, so that it can be verified or ruled out, and no one should be discouraged from doing so. However, an individual has no way of knowing how police or private detectives verify their information, but one can assume they have resources not available to the public.

White Wash wrote:

JM has never spoken to the media that I have seen!
What was sent to the Hanson Express was a note written by his wife supposedly!
Only ones JM has spoken with was Weeper!
<quoted text>

White Wash:

JM was then obviously home? You have written in your summation, that FW states he was not! This is rather misleading information, when we know in detail what JM stated to Weeper? We know that he choose to remain incognito, as he was referred to as the SILENT WITNESS.

One would hope that law enforcement has interviewed JM, you imply that JM has spoken to
no one else, surely you do not include the police as having not spoken to him, that sees rather odd at best and an incomplete investigation not to take a testimony from JM and his wife VM. There were earlier statements in the press besides the Hanson Express articles, where it referred to a witness, if it was not JM then it was VM who spoke to the media.

i.e. back up the saturn and parked parallel to the road, the SBD backed his bus all the way up his driveway for the first time, SBD remained on his bus a very long time before he went into his house. This information could have only come from the "M" household, and it was confirmed by Weeper.

Question: was FW on the phone for 19 minutes?
Or did Sgt. M arrive before the time notated in the Sherriff's Log, and Accident Report issued by him?

Very important question! The answer makes all the difference in the world, as the present timeline that we have developed, is inaccurate. This information needs to be clarified, because if we go by what FW said, Sgt. S arrived at the scene of the accident before he said he did, because it defies logic and acceptable practices that FW was on the phone with RM for 19 minutes, also, according to the logs RM was talking to others during this timeframe. There would be not reason for a 911 operator to keep a person on the line for that length of time considering a car was simply off the road, and the SBD had already arrived.

FW also sees to have changed a number of her statements as well, re: as pointed out in your summation of her remarks, and clarification is necessary, i.e. man smoking a cigarette, now becomes a red dot?! and others pointed out in my post in response to your summation.

Question above: Refers to SGT. S's time of arrival. Freudian slip, saying SGT. M, meaning Monaghan, Trooper M, we do not know his time of arrival nor his departure at the accident scene, and we have no word on whether he filed a report to police as to what he investigated that night.

But if we follow FW timeline, Sgt. Smith must have arrived at the accident scene before 1946, or do we just blindly accept the time written in the accident report?