Maura Murray

Judged:

1

1

GrampaMo wrote:

<quoted text>
I've not heard Bill say that. Can you provide a link to that quote?

Judged:

2

2

2

GrampaMo wrote:

<quoted text>
In my opinion she was drinking, crashed her fathers car in a second accident in just a few days and left the scene to avoid the police that she surely must have known would be on the way. I base this on the red liquid splashed in the car and the bottle with the red liquid in it found just outside the car. I cannot say that she was drunk without a breathilizer test but it's certainly a possibility.

Judged:

3

3

3

jwb wrote:

<quoted text> Saying Maura was drinking still based on an assumption Right?Is it possible that Maura just mixed herself a drink at the crash? The red inside the car could have been from the damaged box of wine right? Do we know if the Red liquid contained alcohol or was Mauras? Remember the post a while back from I believe T-jay and he took a drive to the area for the first time and he commented about all the empty bottles and cans along the road etc..? I think she was (prob) drinking also, but this is not a fact set in stone as it falls into the category of an assumption. At least you admitted that you didn't have any knowledge that she was intoxicated. If the police showed up and Maura was there, they would have to test her to see if she was drinking (field test-Breath test). They can't just assume she drinking and charge her was it based on what they see. It would not hold up in court. LE could charge her with having booze within access to her.

Judged:

3

3

3

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I just wonder if someone, with special training, like maybe your mechanic told you s/he thinks that your engine is misfiring. You would say I don't believe you. You don't see the pattern. Does that make you smarter than him/her? Does that mean s/he is wrong? Or does that just make you not bright enough to recognize when someone might know more than you?

Everything that is publicly known about this crash, is easily explained by using a little logic, Occam's razor and being able to see the pattern that has been repeated over and over and over.
And I love your rapid fire posts. First she wasn't drinking, then she was drinking but she wasn't drunk. Now you are saying maybe she was drinking and/or intoxicated. Listen to your mechanic. She was drinking and she was intoxicated. It's a pattern seen over and over and over again. So, just say that you don't hear the engine misfiring and a few of us do. Some people can't be taught and I have learned to live with that. You are free to construct a fantasy world filled with whatever fairies and magic dust you wish.

For other thinking people, lets try another simple analogy. I see a car resting against a tree with the impression of that tree in the front end and hood of the car. Car is still warm. Do I need to see or hear the collision to know it happened? Do you? Or does the pattern fit something that you might be able to figure out? Or are you one of the TV brain damaged that thinks it takes CSI to figure out what happened?

Listen to your mechanics.

Bill

Judged:

2

2

2

jwb wrote:

Life does not fit into a cozy bedtime story where everything fits like a glove. I understand the notion that LE narrows their findings to the most likely scenario in order to focus on the strongest possibilities based on known facts.

Judged:

1

1

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
AnonymousOne took a drive along that route in March and said he/she had never seen so many discarded beer and booze bottles. They probably aren't from the hikers and bikers, so they most likely were jettisoned from passing vehicles by yahoos on a toot. She could have had a wee dram after the crash or the soda bottle may not have belonged to her in the first place. The bottle could have contained cough medicine or some sort of sports drink. Since SBD said she didn't appear to be intoxicated, I tend to go along with that observation.
Apparently in The Court of a Poster-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named all LE needs to do is sniff the air for any whiff of something alcohol-based and a "normal group of people assembled as a jury" would convict. Wonder what normal means -- retired al-Qaeda execs?

Judged:

1

1

mcsmom wrote:

As far as an alcoholic smell, GHB has no odor, so hard to rule anything based on that, one way or the other. This alcohol could have been at the Sat nite party as well, and the Carolla crash with the possible absence of ETOH smell could lend some credence to the dismissive dui action on the part of Amherst LE. Even Scarinza finds this puzzling.
Secondly, a poster recently raised the question of the red truck and the troubled suicidal youth, linking them by suggesting the truck was searching for this kid.
IMO, if the truck stopped at the Stagestop Store and waited in the parking lot for a period of time, it would only make sense that someone from the truck would have gone in and checked with WM and or asked RO if they had seen this kid. I doubt the red truck was complicit with the youth either.
Lastly, I do recall seeing a post from Sharon in the old MMM forum where in fact she said the Red Cross did have Billy's cell phone number after all.

Judged:

2

2

2

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? You know that? You sure don't seem to.
Listen to your mechanic. You will save lots of windmilling if you do.
That whooosh...whooosh noise you hear is your life wasting away on a task that cannot be solved with the limited information available. But like all, you are free to waste your time as you see fit. I spend mine trying to keep idiot from wasting their time. Oh, and on the side I help spawn elaborate conspiracy theories from people whose meds are not yet balanced.
Sorry, more later, work calls.
Bill

Judged:

1

Tickle pits wrote:

Until Fredrick Murray sits his butt down for a proper interview, this case is never going to be figured out . He shows up one weekend, a car accident occurs, etc. she had to get back to his hotel for whatever reason. Why? Hatching a plan? Telling dad a secret? Maybe an improper relationship? He told Maura to call him 8pm Monday. Call was never made, because of accident and ensuing actions, correct? Did he call her to see why she never called? Did he call UMASS? I mean, my daughter never called so has a dad he should be concerned. Not Fred. He just blames LE. The devil is on the details here.

Judged:

2

mcsmom wrote:

As far as an alcoholic smell, GHB has no odor, so hard to rule anything based on that, one way or the other. This alcohol could have been at the Sat nite party as well, and the Carolla crash with the possible absence of ETOH smell could lend some credence to the dismissive dui action on the part of Amherst LE.

Judged:

2

1

1

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh dude thanks for the laugh (Moniker)Good points also.
I found it odd myself that Fred wasn't trying to call Maura as soon as 8pm past and she didn't call him. i also found it odd that he never got the message till late the next afternoon. A guy on business always has his cell phone on and checks his messages.

Judged:

3

2

1

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you Bill for caring about Me and others that are here posting aka wasting our time. Your time is not wasted here Bill as I honestly feel that you have touched the hearts and minds of many with your kind words.
Bill, please don't worry about us as we will be ok. I am actually a great multi tasker and the Tabs on the toolbar allow me to keep one eye on you and the other eye on my investments,news,sports,Renner and so on. I can even talk to my family while doing this stuff and make an english muffin and not miss a beat.

Judged:

1

1

1

Tickle pits wrote:

<quoted text>. I just thought about that when my teenaged daughter didn't call me on time recently. After about 30 minutes I was in full panic mode. Luckily she answered when I called.