Maura Murray

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep. No one ever seemed to have a tight enough timeline to prove when that rag appeared and who said they saw it when. What we do know for certain is that the only independent documentation doesn't say anything about it. The rest is such old, unreliable information, regurgitated for years, and twisted to suit certain peoples notions of what happened. That no one knows when the rag was placed in the car.
The bigger question is WHO CARES AND WHY????
I have always considered it a red herring. It has nothing to do with why Maura disappeared. If it was her at the car. Or why she ran. Even if it was her that put it there. Why does it matter?
For the those still looking under the lamppost. Whooosh....whooosh....whoosh.. .
Bill

The names of witnesses responding to the scene that night does not belong on a public forum. The info has been given to PIs who said anything they had learned regarding this case would be turned over to LE.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Did notice that the rag in the tail pipe was not mentioned in the report. CS did go to the Ws house and asked if they had seen the girl with the rag in her tail pipe according to the Ws when talking to a family member. Both fire and EMTs had seen the rag in the tail pipe at the scene. I and others personally talked to fire about the rag and an EMT talked to another searcher concerning the rag. There were to many people that had seen the rag stuffed in the tail pipe at the scene so no I dont believe it was put there after it left the scene.

CS evidently asked Faith "Where's the girl"....."the one with the rag in her tailpipe"
So was this asked in exactly that order?

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>According to Faith this was the exact order the questions were asked that night. He knew because he and other responders had seen the rag when responding to the scene.I honestly dont believe all these people would not be honest as to what they had seen concerning the accident scene

Thank you Citi, for taking the time out to answer this question. I understand that this may be one of the least important issues for some of the people here. I myself however, find it a little tricky.

Judging by how far the w-mans lived from the location of the Saturn, and concidering the fact that the car WAS facing THEM, how could CS possibly expect for that family to have an answer ( to a double question ), no less? To me this is like asking did you see where the girl went, the one with three fingers held up behind her back.

IDK, maybe they saw her crouching down for a bit, but that still doesn't explain the question for me at all, or the rag. Maybe he just asked them, and then enlightened them, huh? I still think it was some kind of message.....maybe one only her father would understand.

CS likely said "where's the girl", and I suppose that's when Faith became "shaken" that "the girl" could even be gone in the first place. She said she had just seen her at the car 1-2 minutes prior to his arrival, and (at at the trunk )! So for him to go on to
( seemingly ) ask for an affimative to "the girl with the RAG" just doesn't make sense. How would they know? How could they?

Oh well, it's not like you could answer this any more than you already did. Again, I thank you.

The rag is one thing we actually have a pretty solid timeline on, well when it was discovered at least.

Smith went to the wmans house working minutes of being on scene; 5-10 min if I'm not mistaken.
So that means that within the first few min on scene je had already looked in her muffler.
The official stance is that this was a normal accident, the same things that's happened at the wb curve hindreds of times. Officially they say there was nothin unusual about the scene.

Well ok but then WTH was smith doing looking in the exhaust?
That is not normal by any stretch of the imagination.
Since when does a cop look in a cars exaist when it's on the side of the road after an accident?
Not only that but since when is that one of the first things they do?

There had to be something or someone that gave him a reason to look up the muffler.

IMO there are only 2 reasons possible; either someone told him to, or he was looking for a reason the car died before the corner.

Something else that just doesn't seem right about this whole thing is the fact that almost everyone who was a witness to the accident scene; the westmans, lavoie, the ems driver, all of those witnesses describe the accident as being very strange. Tim westman said that he's seen a lot of accidents on the curve and this one was different from how they normally happen.
The Ems driver dick guy described it like this:

"Everything about the scene of the accident was weird," he says. "If she had just lost control of the car coming around that corner, she would have impacted the North side of the curve. She didn't. She clipped the corner. She sheered the snow bank clean off and continued on to the other side, where it turned the car around."

So, in my view, it's pretty well established that this was not a normal accident.

Dick guys description makes so much more sense than sgt smiths; she lost control before the curve causing her to clip the bank on opposite side of the road, which caused her to spin out to the right and end up ass end in to the snowbank on the other side of the road. This description fits much better with the damage to her car.

So why does it seem that this ems driver has a more accurate depiction of the accident than the cop does?
How can they say this was a normal accident when it clearly wasn't?
Just by smiths actions we can tell that night he did not treat it like a normal accident.
First of all he was checking her exhaust, highly unusual; second he stayed on the scene for almost 2 hrs.
That is a long time.
How long does it take? He calls a row truck, makes a few notes for the report and moves on to other things.

I think that smith could see, like dick guy did, that her car likely died coming into the corner & was looking for something that could have stalled the motor, like something in the tailpipe. That's the only thing that makes sense, to me at lesst.
If anyone else can give a good reason why je would look in the exhaust I would love to hear it bc I can't think of one.

Then that brings us back to the rag; if maura's car stalled before the corner & a rag can be used to stall a car then that could me majorly important, right?
We got a girl who's missing, it look like her car stalled for some reason & we have something that could stall her car found in the muffler.
Am I just crazy? How does this not scream out to people that something is majorly wrong with this picture?

Interesting article..front page of today's Caledonian Record "Target Safety" ref: Melissa Jenkins, Pat O'Hagan, Brianna Maitland and Maura Murray.

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

Am I just crazy?

I wouldn't say you are crazy. I would say you are very inexperienced and your thought process is that of someone who has never worked in the public safety field and therefore you have no basis for what's normal and what's not normal.

Other than that, you clearly have an extraordinarily 'active' imagination and you see things in light of how they fit into your ever changing theories.

As someone said a while back, you dream up interesting theories that please your sense adventure and imagination and then you force the facts to fit your theories, raher than analyze the facts and follow them to logical theories.

Also, you have a fairly immature personality, you really act like a petulant, loud mouthed teenager 99% of the time.

Just my take, you asked right?

Bill your post above about the ccu is misleading.
You also are doing exactly what you accuse me and others of doing, making shit up.

When has anyone from the ccu ever specifically addressed maura's case?
She is definitely on he list but as far as I know theyve said absolutely nothing about her case in particular.
When and where exactly did the ccu say they were treating her dissapearance as suspicious?

They say specifically that they investigate murders and disappearances where murder is suspected, suspected being the key word there.

For her to be on that list means that the lead murder prosecutor for the state reviewed the case file and came to the conclusion that he suspected a murder occured.
If he concluded that she was most likely in the woods she would not be on that list.
That doesn't mean that they're not wrong, but it does mean they suspected she got murdered.

FrmLE suggests that her name could be on the list due to political pressure, which I suppose could be true. But that's pretty shitty if they did that. They think she got lost in the woods but instead of tellin the family: look, she's probably on the woods; we've investigated this case fully and we've come to the conclusion she likely walked intothe woods and died after the accident and we just can't find her. Instead of just telling them that they out her on a list that tells the famil they suspect she was murdered? That seems seriously wrong to me.
Also where is all this political pressure coming from? Why would they do all this if they believe she's in the woods and just hasn't been found yet? They're also gonna look pretty stupid if she is found in the woods.
I think it's pretty clear that she's not going to be found in the woods.

Also about that little story you told, about looking under the lamppost. What's funny about that is I would suggest that is EXACTLY what you are doing, exactly. I think it's so funny that you told that story.
Saying she's lost in the woods is clearly the easy answer to this; & the most rewarding because that means there isn't a murderer on the loose in your vacation spot.
If you admit she likely was murdered then you also have to admit there is a murderer on the loose. Then you also have to admit it's extremely difficult to find the guy or figure out what happened.
That's not a very nice thing to have to think about your vacation spot, or your bak yard.

I suggest that deciding she was lost in the woods is looking underthe lamp post. Your never gonna find her there, but it is way more easy & rewarding than admitting she probably got killed, bc then u have to admit that you have no idea what happened.

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

When and where exactly did the ccu say they were treating her dissapearance as suspicious?

Ummm, do you ever read or fact check anything you write? Seriously, your lack of intelligence amazes me.

This is directly from the NHCCU website.

http://doj.nh.gov/criminal/cold-case/victim-l...

On February 9, 2004 Maura Murray's vehicle was reported to have been involved in a single-car accident along Route 112 in Haverhill, NH. When the North Haverhill police arrived at the scene, they found no trace of Maura. In the years since her disappearance, numerous agencies and individuals have attempted to locate her without success. Maura was twenty-one years old when she disappeared and was last seen wearing a dark jacket and jeans. Her disappearance is being treated as suspicious.

Let me help you, read the last line.

" Her disappearance is being treated as suspicious."

WOW, just wow.

Wow, impressive.

You found the thing that I asked bill about.
Sorry I never saw that page, awesome job discrediting me; I'm very impressed lol

That was exactly why I asked bill that because I never saw that page where they adressed her case specifically.

But that still doesn't change the fact that the ccu clearly states that they only investigate missing persons where foul play is suspected.

You're a joke, you make me laugh.

Don't stop.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
" Her disappearance is being treated as suspicious."
WOW, just wow.

Kinda makes you wonder what he thought I was doing when I actually put that sentence in quotes. I wonder what he thinks quotes means? So I wonder if he understands the difference between lying and quoting. I don't really think he does.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text> So I wonder if he understands the difference between lying and quoting. I don't really think he does.

It's so plainly obvious to everyone who has ever read more tha 2 of his rambling posts that he has no idea of the difference between the truth and his crazy lies.

I think it was WTH or Formle who called him bobby the liar, spinenr, and embellisher, that's pretty dead on. He has no clue what a fact is, just what excites him and titilates his crazy self.

It is funny and entertaining though, I give him that.

What I find funny is how hard you guy try to discredit me, say i'm lying and all this stupid bullshit, yet you come up with the weakest crap to show it.

Really? because I didn't see that one page and asked bill where he saw that then i'm a liar?

Why can't you guys find some real lies that i've said? WHy is that so hard if I lie about this stuff all the time?

It was super easy for me to show frmLE is lying, all you have to do is read through his posts.

So how come you guys cant do that?
How come you guys always come up with the cheesiest crap?
Its hilarious, you guys try so hard yet you've never been able to show one legitimate lie.
Keep trying guys, your gonnd have to to a little better than that.

Hey bill, I know you avoid this question like the plague but maybe you can explain to us how you forgot how many houses you own? How exactly does that work?
lol, you guys are so ridiculous.

Looks like theyve resorted stealing my moniker again.

Wow, you guys are desperate huh??

Thats pretty sad, you guys must be getting really desperate to have to resort to such weak methods.

I wasn't signed in on my phone for some reason but my posts were showing dayton,oh when I was posting.
The bobjenkins-OG from lansing, MI clearly isn't me.

These guys are just pissed because I prove them wrong so often that they have to resort to weak tactics, like stealing my moniker, which has happened on more than a couple occasions. If everything I'm saying is so wrong it should be pretty easy to prove wrong without resorting to any underhanded tactics...wonder why they can't do that?

What a joke these guys are

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
Ummm, do you ever read or fact check anything you write? Seriously, your lack of intelligence amazes me.
This is directly from the NHCCU website.
http://doj.nh.gov/criminal/cold-case/victim-l...
On February 9, 2004 Maura Murray's vehicle was reported to have been involved in a single-car accident along Route 112 in Haverhill, NH. When the North Haverhill police arrived at the scene, they found no trace of Maura. In the years since her disappearance, numerous agencies and individuals have attempted to locate her without success. Maura was twenty-one years old when she disappeared and was last seen wearing a dark jacket and jeans. Her disappearance is being treated as suspicious.
Let me help you, read the last line.
" Her disappearance is being treated as suspicious."
WOW, just wow.

It's been posted before. I've done it. He's been around forever, but refuses to pay attention or cannot comprehend.
He gets something in his mind and flies with it.
I refuse to coddle him.

Hey man, as long as you believe the crap you are spewing, it's all good. It sure is entertaining and frankly the more you post the farther you get from reality.

WTH is a liar? Sure

Formle is a liar, and you proved this? Sure

You are right and everyone is picking on you? Sure

All good man, keep it coming, it is funny stuff.

I wouldn't call Bill a liar, he has clearly exadderated the number of houses he owns but I wouldn't say that makes him a liar outright.

But FrmLE is clearly a liar, no question.
You really need to go back and read the thread a little bit if you think FrmLE is who he says he is.
A couple weekends ago me and a couple other people clearly showed that he is lying about a lot of different things. Maybe he was a cop, maybe he wasn't, I dont believe he was but he is definetly lying about a lot of crap.
the guy said that he's a state cop and he's gone so deep undercover that the federal government gave him several new identities. lol, anyone who believes that is an idiot. A state cop given multiple new identities by the feds?? Not only once under a special circumstance but several times?? Bullshit, total bullshit. Even FrmLE himself didn't even try to defend that one. lol He changed it to he just got ID's given to him
Anyone who actually believes FrmLE's shtick is just straight up gullible.

I already told you man, I was never a cop, remember?
Just kidding ya, I made it all up. lol

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

I wouldn't call Bill a liar, he has clearly exadderated the number of houses he owns but I wouldn't say that makes him a liar outright.

Bobby, buddy. I have never exaggerated about anything I have said, done or reported. Never had to. But, you have on several occasions misrepresented what I have said. As is your habit with many things you have read and then restated as fact.

Bill

yea no shit FrmLE; feels good to tell the truth doesn't it?