Maura Murray

findmaura wrote:

A couple things that keep nagging at me concerning Mauras possible "Last known Location"-The hair&duct tape...

http://westernmass.craigslist.org/art/2992944...

Shack wrote:

<quoted text>Please accept my memory...it was about police, "good old boys"...some drugs...nothing about murder...and please again accept my memory about a local Woodsville Restaurant with a basement
with questionable patrons.
Sorry that this not very helpful for Maura.

If nothing else has been proven it is that your "memory" is nothing, if not useless. How many times have you stated something that you "remembered" only to go back to your "notes" and have found that you had it entirely wrong?

But you are correct. Not very helpful for Maura. But, that sums up your entire time on this forum and the previous ones.

Bill

Shack wrote:

<quoted text>Please accept my memory...it was about police, "good old boys"...some drugs...nothing about murder...and please again accept my memory about a local Woodsville Restaurant with a basement
with questionable patrons.
Sorry that this not very helpful for Maura.

Too bad its no longer available....reading up on the good old boys may have provided some insight into Mauras case.

Bill, the whole "shacks name lives in infamy" thing has to be one of the stupidest things you've ever written.

How exactly does her name "live in infamy"? Lol
You can't be serious, you are literally the only person I see who even makes posts about her. Her moniker clearly doesn't "live in infamy"; except maybe in your wharves mind. What you say about her is so ridiculous, it's just plain asinine. Maybe she says something stupid every now and again like everyone does, but at least she cares, at least she gives a shit about someone besides a few locals, who aren't even mentioned by name no less, who are criminals and wife beaters; that's a whole lot than you can say for yourself. What's your deal you don't care about anyone but yourself and your family or what?

You, snowy and frmLE should be ashamed of yourselves. You sit there telling lies and making statements of fact based on faulty assumptions. Like today when talking about that article you referred to Maura as a "drunk girl"; well that is a totally faulty statement based on an assumption; that she was drunk.
That is totally contrary to all of the witness statements but you could care less. You consider her a drunk girl and that's that. You speak about it like it's a known fact and it's sickening. You don't know she was drunk, you know she had one drink, if even that because smith describes a pink stain in the snow so we know there was more than just a sip left in that bottle. How many of those do you really think she drank on her way up there? One? Maybe two?
I seriously doubt she was pounding drinks and judging by the witness statements there is no way she drank that much.
There is absolutely no reports that have her slurring, or staggering, or walking funny in any way. All the things that you Would expect a "drunk girl" to be doing.

You talking about her being drunk like it's a fact is doing exactly what your guys always accuse everyone else of doing. It's major hypocrisy. Funny thing is most of the time we aren't even doing that & you accuse us of it. Almost every post you make that's actually regarding the case and not about how stuoid someone is you base what your saying on your assumption that she was drunk.
That is clearly an assumption and a rather faulty one at that; your completely disregarding the witness statements.
Gotta make you wonder what's your motive behind this, why have you been here for 4 years making close to 2,600 posts. Seriously, why do you care so much?

You've been here all those years making all those posts and you still haven't even been able to convince anyone that shack is the devils spawn that you purport her to be; well maybe you convinced snowy and frmLE.

You really need to stop making all these false statements that are based on faulty assumptions. And while your at it stop accusing good, caring people of doing what you yourself have done hundreds, if not thousands of times.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. What do you have to gain from trying to convince people she's just a drunk girl lost in the woods? Why do you care so much? What is your motive for all of the effort here?

Are you & frmLE really so insecure about yourselves that you need to try to make people look stupid in online forums?

I remember the website too shack and damn I wish it still existed. It was highly interesting reading.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Are you & frmLE really so insecure about yourselves that you need to try to make people look stupid in online forums?

We don't make you and your pals looks stupid, you do a great job of doing that all on your own.

I admit, it is pretty entertaining shining a spotlight on your stupidity from time to time.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
We don't make you and your pals looks stupid, you do a great job of doing that all on your own.
I admit, it is pretty entertaining shining a spotlight on your stupidity from time to time.

I think you look pretty stupid saying that you are a former LE and you believe that you needed a passport to get into Canada in 2004.(that is major stupid). I think you look very stupid when you think Nancy Smith was referring to the crash site as the last known place that LE knows where Maura was (and it needs to be kept secret). I think you look pretty stupid on The Patric M forum harassing the mother of a dead child.I think you look pretty stupid enjoying being a troll on a forum for a missing girl.

findmaura wrote:

A couple things that keep nagging at me concerning Mauras possible "Last known Location"-The hair&duct tape..The rte 116 hotel...The dirt road CS claims a runner turned down&lastly Bretton woods...could any of these be the location mentioned in court?If LE didnt see her at this location,who told them or how do they know "The last known location"

findmaura,
Very possibly so.
Let´s not forget that two independent witnesses apparenly observed a person walking on or near Rte 112 in Swiftwater village shortly after Maura´s accident at the WB curve.
Her last known location may very well have been somewhere close to Swiftwater. The "eddies", where a person was observed walking by a a witness (according to Citigirl)are from what I understand the part of the Wild A-suc river by the covered bridge in Swiftwater village. The minor road passing through the covered bridge continues towards Bath. Could Maura (?) have continued walking in that direction?
Or did she possibly continue walking along Rte 112 between Swiftwater village and the camping ground at the 112/US 302 intersection?
I have been checking that stretch of road on Google Street View and it seems pretty desolate with barely a single house along 112 between Swiftwater and the 112/US 302 intersection.

Another thing in this context:

The two witnesses in Swiftwater village who apparently (according to Citigirl) observed a person walking on or near Rte 112 described this person as walking rather than running.
So, whether this person was Maura or not he/she seemingly wasn´t in a state of panic or he/she would have been unlikely to walk rather than run.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
We don't make you and your pals looks stupid, you do a great job of doing that all on your own.
I admit, it is pretty entertaining shining a spotlight on your stupidity from time to time.

I MUST repost this:

I often wonder how someone could humiliate someone else. I mean, wouldn't the person who was humiliated have to have posted something at such a high level of stupidity that someone else (maybe me or FrmLE or Snowy or Wowzer) pointing out that high level of stupidity would be the cause of that humiliation? How is that the fault of the person pointing out the stupidity, to keep it from infecting the rest of the forum?

Just wondering.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I MUST repost this:
I often wonder how someone could humiliate someone else. I mean, wouldn't the person who was humiliated have to have posted something at such a high level of stupidity that someone else (maybe me or FrmLE or Snowy or Wowzer) pointing out that high level of stupidity would be the cause of that humiliation? How is that the fault of the person pointing out the stupidity, to keep it from infecting the rest of the forum?
Just wondering.
Bill

WTH - Anything to add to the conversation about Maura or is all about you and bulling others? How about adding your insight to the statement by Nancy Smith. I'll even post the whole thing from Renners Blog.I know its not entertaining, but it is a forum about Maura Murray so why not give it a whirl.
" While we don't in any way suggest it's the case here, what we are being asked to do in this case would open up the state of New Hampshire and law enforcement investigatory files at a pre indictment phase to the suspected perpetrator as well as everyone else in the world.
We do have information that we are pursuing that this may involve a crime.
Knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was could be valuable information to that person.
This is very much an active case."
WTH care to enlighten us all with your take on the following?
"Knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was could be valuable information to that person."
Does it sound to you that she is talking about the secret crash site at the WB curve?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I MUST repost this:
I often wonder how someone could humiliate someone else. I mean, wouldn't the person who was humiliated have to have posted something at such a high level of stupidity that someone else (maybe me or FrmLE or Snowy or Wowzer) pointing out that high level of stupidity would be the cause of that humiliation? How is that the fault of the person pointing out the stupidity, to keep it from infecting the rest of the forum?
Just wondering.
Bill

I MUST repost this - lol
Someone needs a new brain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
WTH - Anything to add to the conversation about Maura or is all about you and bulling others? How about adding your insight to the statement by Nancy Smith. I'll even post the whole thing from Renners Blog.I know its not entertaining, but it is a forum about Maura Murray so why not give it a whirl.
" While we don't in any way suggest it's the case here, what we are being asked to do in this case would open up the state of New Hampshire and law enforcement investigatory files at a pre indictment phase to the suspected perpetrator as well as everyone else in the world.
We do have information that we are pursuing that this may involve a crime.
Knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was could be valuable information to that person.
This is very much an active case."
WTH care to enlighten us all with your take on the following?
"Knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was could be valuable information to that person."
Does it sound to you that she is talking about the secret crash site at the WB curve?

Info is dated; don't hang your hat on it. The authorities will make an official, updated public statement as the need demands. Right now, there is no new news for public consumption. Sorry.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
Info is dated; don't hang your hat on it. The authorities will make an official, updated public statement as the need demands. Right now, there is no new news for public consumption. Sorry.

I was posting to Bill MYOB

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
I was posting to Bill MYOB

I answered. Tough.
Any add'tl insight will add to your knowledge base.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
I answered. Tough.
Any add'tl insight will add to your knowledge base.

I am not interested in what you have to say as my question was directed to Bill. FRMLE already skated around the question like he was Nancy Kerrigan and now you jump in when I directed it to Bill.

I know it is difficult to admit when one is wrong and we understand why FRMLE and WTH won't answer the question or give an opinion on it. After all this is a guy who thinks you needed a passport to get into Canada in 2004.

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
WTH - Anything to add to the conversation about Maura or is all about you and bulling others? How about adding your insight to the statement by Nancy Smith. I'll even post the whole thing from Renners Blog.I know its not entertaining, but it is a forum about Maura Murray so why not give it a whirl.
" While we don't in any way suggest it's the case here, what we are being asked to do in this case would open up the state of New Hampshire and law enforcement investigatory files at a pre indictment phase to the suspected perpetrator as well as everyone else in the world.
We do have information that we are pursuing that this may involve a crime.
Knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was could be valuable information to that person.
This is very much an active case."
WTH care to enlighten us all with your take on the following?
"Knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was could be valuable information to that person."
Does it sound to you that she is talking about the secret crash site at the WB curve?

Can you not read what is written here?

She states:“While we don't in any way suggest it's the case here, what we are being asked to do in this case would open up the state of New Hampshire and law enforcement investigatory files at a pre indictment phase to the suspected perpetrator as well as everyone else in the world.”

She is outright saying that while she doesn’t know if it is the case here. They do not want to open up investigatory files because they think it could hurt ANY CASE, not specifically this one.

They are pursuing information that she says THIS MAY INVOLVE A CRIME.

Holy shit. It might involve a crime. Yeah, and it might involve just a young girl running from her car drunk. They don’t know but are erring on that side. They have more concern for crimes that they know occurred and are made to release information. They clearly state that.

The other 75% chance of a charge being brought. Is it still 75% all these years later or is it 99% or 85%??? I mean, those numbers are total horseshit, they have no meaning whatsoever. What it means is very simply THEY DON”T KNOW but it might be a crime. And MORE IMPORTANTLY they worry about if a real crime occurs and they need to release this type of information.

I don’t thing specifically they know the last known position of Maura. For certain it was at the car. The CW sighting first appeared to not even fall in a possible timeline. Later, when more information came out, it appeared that it could have. It is not an actual ID of Maura though is it?

So again, you are left with Maura, seen for certain at the car. With alcohol on board, running from the car before police get there. Too many unknowns to solve the case, but it’s a laugh riot watching people scurry around.

Now I can't play the rest of the day. I am very busy here at work. Maybe later tonight but I am getting ready to take vacation in NH so I need to pack and get ready. So I might not be able to play tonight either. Just a heads up.

Bill

LOL, is that really the most you have to try to discredit me? The ole passport drama?

I have alread y said several times, I was a Police Detective, a Criminal Investigator, NOT a border patrol agent. I never conducted any U/C Narcotics operations in another country, as I had no jurisdiction in the Great WHite North. I don't know anyone other cops who worked in Canada either, FWIW.

Is this really the entire basis for your assertion that I was never a cop? That's it? If so, then you got me. Let me come clean right now.

I never worked a heated toll booth on the US/Canada Border!

Whew, feels so good!

lol

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you not read what is written here?
She states:“While we don't in any way suggest it's the case here, what we are being asked to do in this case would open up the state of New Hampshire and law enforcement investigatory files at a pre indictment phase to the suspected perpetrator as well as everyone else in the world.”
She is outright saying that while she doesn’t know if it is the case here. They do not want to open up investigatory files because they think it could hurt ANY CASE, not specifically this one.
They are pursuing information that she says THIS MAY INVOLVE A CRIME.
Holy shit. It might involve a crime. Yeah, and it might involve just a young girl running from her car drunk. They don’t know but are erring on that side. They have more concern for crimes that they know occurred and are made to release information. They clearly state that.
The other 75% chance of a charge being brought. Is it still 75% all these years later or is it 99% or 85%??? I mean, those numbers are total horseshit, they have no meaning whatsoever. What it means is very simply THEY DON”T KNOW but it might be a crime. And MORE IMPORTANTLY they worry about if a real crime occurs and they need to release this type of information.
I don’t thing specifically they know the last known position of Maura. For certain it was at the car. The CW sighting first appeared to not even fall in a possible timeline. Later, when more information came out, it appeared that it could have. It is not an actual ID of Maura though is it?
So again, you are left with Maura, seen for certain at the car. With alcohol on board, running from the car before police get there. Too many unknowns to solve the case, but it’s a laugh riot watching people scurry around.
Now I can't play the rest of the day. I am very busy here at work. Maybe later tonight but I am getting ready to take vacation in NH so I need to pack and get ready. So I might not be able to play tonight either. Just a heads up.
Bill

That was not the question that was asked to talk about.Once again you skate around the issue. Forget it Bill thought you might actually try to answer the question that was originally posted to FRMLE. You would make a great politician.

Hello all,
No wonder we increasingly rarely hear from hannah_b, amy researches and a good many other, fairly regular posters here anymore.
Trying to get back to discussing the subject of this Topix board seems more or less an impossible effort these days, while everyone is busy hitting each other with verbal abuse of varying ferocity.
This so called discussion board has gone to the pits lately, and in my opinion both "camps" here are equally responsible for that.
Verbal power-plays are only so much fun...
I´m off!

FrmLE wrote:

LOL, is that really the most you have to try to discredit me? The ole passport drama?
I have alread y said several times, I was a Police Detective, a Criminal Investigator, NOT a border patrol agent. I never conducted any U/C Narcotics operations in another country, as I had no jurisdiction in the Great WHite North. I don't know anyone other cops who worked in Canada either, FWIW.
Is this really the entire basis for your assertion that I was never a cop? That's it? If so, then you got me. Let me come clean right now.
I never worked a heated toll booth on the US/Canada Border!
Whew, feels so good!
lol

hey dumbass you don't have to work the border to know that a passport wasn't needed to cross into Canada in 2004. you say you were undercover in a state that borders Canada and you don't even know the passport regulations ha ha what a joke.This is just one of a growing list of statements that you make that discredit you.