Maura Murray

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't speak to why he left, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is afraid, and I don't blame him for leaving. Seems no matter what he said or posted, there were always people who wanted to twist his words or actions around to point to him as a bad guy -- starting way before the videos. I think it's a shame that people suspected him of any wrongdoing with nothing pointing to him being involved in any way, and that they treated him the way they did for so many years. He's a smart guy who was trying to help find answers, just like many of the posters here over the years. I miss his posts, because he had some interesting theories, but I can completely understand why he might not want to post anymore. Personally, I like him, so I hope he is ok.

He was a real suspect at one time. So no pity party for someone who taunts families and PI's.

I can understand why the information requested that was denied could compromise the case.
The friends,family,strangers,PI's, LE and God knows how many more questioned the people that lived in the vicinity and beyond of Maura's accident to death when their names were made public. Fred knocked on doors along with many others.
IMHO it could have done much damage to the case if the witness interviews,all info related to the searches, results of lie detector tests, list of all DNA tests, etc. were made public.
And why would the identity of all the officers and personnel involved in searches and the investigation be requested if not to be tracked down and questioned?
I would think that some might be afraid to talk if they thought it would be made public along with their identity and witnesses might close up like clams which would certainly hamper any investigation.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I was disputing both statements. I didn't consider that a favorable outcome but if you did, OK.
<quoted text>
This second statement confuses me a little more. He is still not entitled to anything new unless the State says releasing it won't harm the case. As long as they maintain it can harm the case, it doesn't need to be disclosed. At least that is how I interpret what the court said.
Bill

It gets confusing to explain, not entitled to anything beyond when it was deemed a criminal case, but before that maybe. The judge called it a "missing person/criminal investigation" and the law applicable to FOI starts to lose its clear cut boundaries.

It's difficult to establish from the outside the exact reason why LE propelled the case to criminal status, and why at that particular time in the case. And what was the tipping point.

It's worth noting that LE went to UMASS to get a copy of the hard drive prior to picking up the items from Kathleen (without a subpoena).

Stud wrote:

<quoted text>He was a real suspect at one time. So no pity party for someone who taunts families and PI's.

If he were a suspect, don't you think LE would pay him a visit?

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
If he were a suspect, don't you think LE would pay him a visit?

Do we know if they did or didn't pay him a visit? PI did pay a visit.

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Do we know if they did or didn't pay him a visit? PI did pay a visit.

A PI did question him. But that doesn't make him a suspect. To my knowledge, LE has not. Perhaps Stud has information to the contrary that he would like to share with us.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
They asked for these items back in July, when LE called in Major Crimes( and thereby claiming a criminal case which protects them from releasing info) Coincidentally (or maybe not) at same time Fred sent a letter to UMASS requesting, and again I'll repeat for wowzer ALL information and computer data.
Just prior to that, NHSP made a trip to UMASS.
And up to this point LE had given Fred some of the documents he requested.( call logs )

That makes it even more strange. Family had possession of the computer from February until some time in July, and did not try to get information off of the computer. In July, when LE took it back, all of a sudden FM requested info on the same computer (possibly along with other computers MM may have had access to). This is beyond strange, makes no sense at all.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
That makes it even more strange. Family had possession of the computer from February until some time in July, and did not try to get information off of the computer. In July, when LE took it back, all of a sudden FM requested info on the same computer (possibly along with other computers MM may have had access to). This is beyond strange, makes no sense at all.

IMO, Fred was looking for UMASS computer data and such, and not necessarily from the computer that Kathleen had.

I think if Fred wanted Maura's computer data that LE had he would have asked them, instead of UMASS.
Likely her personal computer data was analyzed in NH by LE as WTH suggested.

But his letter was to UMASS.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
IMO, Fred was looking for UMASS computer data and such, and not necessarily from the computer that Kathleen had.

The UMASS computer not Kathleen's.

MCSMOM your daughter's car that supposedly can barely run is found in the middle of nowwhere. Your daughter a straight A student has just packed up about two weeks into the semester and drove to the middle of nowhere. She was in an accident and no one has been able to find her.
You drive three hours and don't use your cell phone to make any phone calls to call family to see if anyone has heard from her. You suppossedly have no idea where your daughter is. After driving the long trip you sit with LE and tell them she is out "squawalking"
She wasn't: abducted, kidnapped, sold into sex slavery or anything like that. You just think she is out doing the old squawalk.
Couple days later after your initial search you can't find your daughter thats okay don't turn on the PC that your other daughter has posession of, and don't keep the car you won't need that. Every daughter randomly goes out and disappears in the middle of nowhere in a broken beat up car in the beginning of the semester to do a squawalk.

I promise you that if any readers of this topix forum daughter's went missing there would be a much different plan of action that transpired here.

If you were a young women and just wrecked your car in a somewhat unfamiliar rural area and were drinking alcohol what would you do?

A: Walk away from the car and hide in woods

B: Walk back towards nearest known town

C: Continue Walking towards destination

D: Take a ride with first car that offers

if the answer could be determined it would make things easier

keep in mind she knew the police would be coming and she did not want to talk to them right away because she had been drinking even if she wasnt overly intoxicated.

I think she got into a car for a few reasons:

1. It was cold.(not extremely cold but still winter)
2. She knew she needed to get away from the accident scene.
3. A car very likely easily saw the accident and picked her up after seeing her a short distance away.
4. No other vehicles saw her that night even though that road gets a fair amount of traffic.
5. The dog scent trail ended 100 yards east.

Everything seems to point that way.

Considering it was winter and several miles away from any town nearby it would be most logical to accept a ride.

I believe whoever was in the car abducted her.

The only anomally is Rick Forcier's sighting and I can not get around that but either he made it up or it wasn't her.

If she was picked up though it would pretty much be impossible at this point to get any information about it.

anonymousone wrote:

I think she got into a car for a few reasons:
1. It was cold.(not extremely cold but still winter)
2. She knew she needed to get away from the accident scene.
3. A car very likely easily saw the accident and picked her up after seeing her a short distance away.
4. No other vehicles saw her that night even though that road gets a fair amount of traffic.
5. The dog scent trail ended 100 yards east.
Everything seems to point that way.
Considering it was winter and several miles away from any town nearby it would be most logical to accept a ride.
I believe whoever was in the car abducted her.
The only anomally is Rick Forcier's sighting and I can not get around that but either he made it up or it wasn't her.
If she was picked up though it would pretty much be impossible at this point to get any information about it.

For your scenario to work you have to assume that Maura was willing to risk her security to get into the car with a total stranger rather than waiting by the car or in one of the local houses.

She was drinking before her first accident in MA and wasn't given a ticket so I'm thinking she would have took her chances with LE.

The rag in the tailpipe makes me think that she planned on coming back to the car at some point. Meaning she took off running and was going to come back to the car the next day or later on that night.

anonymousone wrote:

If you were a young women and just wrecked your car in a somewhat unfamiliar rural area and were drinking alcohol what would you do?
A: Walk away from the car and hide in woods
B: Walk back towards nearest known town
C: Continue Walking towards destination
D: Take a ride with first car that offers
if the answer could be determined it would make things easier

Of all these choices option D is the only choice that introduces another party with decision making capabilities. A,B,C, gives Maura complete control to leave the scene whenever she wants.

For Maura to take a ride there is a series of steps that have to happen. First, you need a driver in a car that is willing to offer a ride. Some people won't offer a ride to strangers, some people would, but may be in a hurry to get home. The driver would also need to be willing to offer MM a plausable destination. Maura would also need to feel comfortable with the person that she is going to get into the car with. She is not going to just jump into the first car. There is a matching process that takes place between the two parties.

So when you say take a ride with the first car that offers it probably wouldn't happen that way. She would need to feel comfortable with the person driving, and the person driving would also want to stop to pick up a stranger. Numerous cars would have to pass which would mean that there would have been more sightings.

I think the only way she could have left by car would have been someone she knows. And that person would have had to be on the road traveling with her.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>She was drinking before her first accident in MA and wasn't given a ticket so I'm thinking she would have took her chances with LE.

Lighthouse, where did you get this information? I have always suspected that she was drinking at the first accident but like you said there were no charges filed. Is this just your speculation or did you find something that makes that a fact?

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Lighthouse, where did you get this information? I have always suspected that she was drinking at the first accident but like you said there were no charges filed. Is this just your speculation or did you find something that makes that a fact?
Bill

On Renner's Blog: In FM's MA police statement. FM in his statement says: " I told her she was lucky that she didn't get a ticket for drunk driving." That statement along with the friends who saw her drinking gives me enough information.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
On Renner's Blog: In FM's MA police statement. FM in his statement says: " I told her she was lucky that she didn't get a ticket for drunk driving." That statement along with the friends who saw her drinking gives me enough information.

I had always suspected that, but like I said but never saw anything concrete.

There have been other statements from family, IIRC that she liked booze in her coffee in the morning. The thing I found even more amazing was this (relative)? didn't think that was unusual. I'm sure someone here will remember who that was. I can't remember if it was a relative or family friend or Billy's mom. Anyone? I am certain of the content of the statement, I'm just fuzzy on who specifically said it.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I had always suspected that, but like I said but never saw anything concrete.
There have been other statements from family, IIRC that she liked booze in her coffee in the morning. The thing I found even more amazing was this (relative)? didn't think that was unusual. I'm sure someone here will remember who that was. I can't remember if it was a relative or family friend or Billy's mom. Anyone? I am certain of the content of the statement, I'm just fuzzy on who specifically said it.
Bill

Billys mom is my recollection.

from Nancy west Article:

"When visiting the Rausch family in Marengo, Ohio, Maura would add Bailey's to her coffee in the morning and drink Mike's Hard Lemonade with lunch, she said. Maura and Billy always had their stash of alcohol because Rausch doesn't drink, but she said Maura didn't drink excessively."