Maura Murray

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
I think she is referring to the corner of the Westman's property with their house. If you look at this photo, you can see the pole: http://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/12/82/75/73/maur... I don't know if they are for snow or what they are for, maybe they have reflectors on them. I looked on Google Maps on Street View, there are four of them on the Westman's property on the curve.

I have seen the poles with the yellow background and black arrows around the curve. When Just me referred to the poles on the corner I thought she was referring to the corner of BHR and 112 or another corner. This is why I said I did not recall seeing poles on the corner and asked her what corner she was referring to.After seeing the photo I now know where she is referring to.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Maruchan- FW uses the word leisurely in an interview she gave to a local paper. She said it, theres no debating it. This same exact conversation happened a few months ago where the word leisurely was questioned and I had to dig up the quote where she said it. I dug it up and proved it to the couple idiots who for some reason need everything spoon fed to them.
Go look it up, its there, all you need to do is look.

This is your theory, therefore the burden of proof is on you to provide that quote, not me. I have already, of course, searched for any Faith Westman quote that says or implies "leisurely" - I did it before I asked you to provide a quote. I could find nothing, and as mcsmom says above, the only reference to the word "leisure" is a reference to MM's book.

If you have posted the quote previously, it should be easy for you to find it now. However, in a search on Topix for any posts by you that include a quote from Faith Westman using the word "leisurely", or "leisurly" as you misspelled it once, there is none. You brought it up in May, and posted about it several times - on none of those occasions did you provide a quote or anything proving it was true.

Those posts are from May 5th, 7th, and 9th and are numbers 20136, 20148, 20220, and 20288.

Just for fun, I even skimmed all posts up until May 14th - not one person questioned you about "leisurely" - it was not brought up again until September, and as far as I can tell, I am the first person who has questioned the "leisurely" factor that you, and only you, have mentioned. You did not post a quote to prove anybody wrong because nobody questioned you.

As I said, you are trying to build a theory that MM was not trying to evade LE as evidenced by her "leisurely" smoking a cigarette, the burden of proof is on you. Provide the quote, or any quote that shows that MM was taking her time. Until then, your facts, once again, are not facts, and you are building a theory on nothing but your own imagination.

It's unlikely any pole or tree caused the damage to her car, almost impossible.
Her car has damage below the bumper, then the bumper is undamaged and then there's more damage above the bumper. No pole or tree can cause damage like that.
It's also unlikely a snowbank caused the damage seen above the bumper but it could be possible a big ice chunk caused it.

This is one of the things that caused weeper and other pi's to think the accident was staged at the WB.
Way back on the original MM forum we were talking about that, how the damage doesn't fit with hitting a snowbank or a tree.

Weeper and the family then got an accident reconstructionist to look into it and they confirmed many peoples suspicions; that damage was not caused by a tree. He called it an unknown "overhang object", like a truck bumper or something higher than her bumper. Weeper, a very experienced investigator who worked for the NHSP for years stated he believes the damage was not caused at the scene we know about.

The damage below her bumper is consistent with hitting a snowbank.
The damage above her bumper is not consistent with hitting a tree, what caused that damage?

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
I think she is referring to the corner of the Westman's property with their house. If you look at this photo, you can see the pole: http://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/12/82/75/73/maur... I don't know if they are for snow or what they are for, maybe they have reflectors on them. I looked on Google Maps on Street View, there are four of them on the Westman's property on the curve.

Its obvious by looking at the photo nothing happened or stuck the pole.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Watch out for lemons - someone with something up their muffler today has them in a bad mood. Avoid lemons at all cost. Go to safe house A. Be careful at safe house, girl from citi claims unsafe. last agent there went bonkers. awaiting further info.

Show me a posting were one says a house is unsafe.

Anyone else have the feeling that WTH is getting ready to rain on the parade at any moment? I can't believe he didn't chime in when Jenkins mentioned "hitch".

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Her car has damage below the bumper, then the bumper is undamaged and then there's more damage above the bumper.

Again, entirely incorrect. The entire bumper is damaged from the bottom to the top in a line with the damaged hood. Simply because its plastic, it bounced back. There is clearly damage. Again, you make things up to try to support your contention rather than let the evidence lead you.

Bill

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

It's unlikely any pole or tree caused the damage to her car, almost impossible.
Her car has damage below the bumper, then the bumper is undamaged and then there's more damage above the bumper. No pole or tree can cause damage like that.
It's also unlikely a snowbank caused the damage seen above the bumper but it could be possible a big ice chunk caused it.
This is one of the things that caused weeper and other pi's to think the accident was staged at the WB.
Way back on the original MM forum we were talking about that, how the damage doesn't fit with hitting a snowbank or a tree.
Weeper and the family then got an accident reconstructionist to look into it and they confirmed many peoples suspicions; that damage was not caused by a tree. He called it an unknown "overhang object", like a truck bumper or something higher than her bumper. Weeper, a very experienced investigator who worked for the NHSP for years stated he believes the damage was not caused at the scene we know about.
The damage below her bumper is consistent with hitting a snowbank.
The damage above her bumper is not consistent with hitting a tree, what caused that damage?

there was no damage in the area to any trees.

Maruchan- Clearly your not looking hard enough, not even close. are you even looking or just talkin shit? When I get a minute I will dig up the quote, once again. This has already happened: people questioning the word leisurely and I dug up the quote. When I dig it up are you going to change your opinion?? I seriously doubt it...

Forget about the word leisurely for a minute, let's look at what she did.
Sbd come around the corner and she's either out of the car or getting out of the car, or still behind the airbag, he said all three on different occasions.
So sbd leaves.
She's then seen going back and forth between her car and her trunk a few times I believe, at least twice.
She is also seen sitting in her car, with the door open for a few minutes either smoking or trying to find a cell signal, prob tryin to get a signal.
So she sits in her car for a few minutes, she also goes to her trunk at least twice. She must have been at her car at least 5 mins, probably longer after sbd left. There is a quote that either the wman's or marottes saw her at the car 2 mins before LE arrived. We know it took smith 19 mins to arrive on scene after the first call from FW. Sbd was only on the scene about 3-5 mins I would say. If they actually saw her just a few minutes before LE then That means she must have been at her car for more like 10 minutes before she left.
think about it: 19min from when FW called and she saw the sbd come along within mins of making that call. Sbd was on scene for like 3-5 min. That means she had to be at the car for at least 5 min after he left, probably more like 10.
If she was so afraid of police that she was about to walk miles into the woods to her death to avoid them then why was she staying at her car at all?
FW definitely said leisurely, no doubt, we already went through this thing months ago.
But even without the word she was still at the car for at least a few minutes easy, probably 5-10.
Remember: she could've grabbed her backpack and been out of there in under 30 seconds flat after the sbd left, that's what you would expect from someone trying to avoid police, would you not?
But that's not what she did. She say there and tried to get a signal, when she couldn't get one she got her stuff together and left, likely flagging down a ride from a passing motorist.
Here's the problem I have with what your saying, your basing everything on one word, as if FW didn't say leisurely means that everything else she did at the car should be ignored. Whether she said leisurely is inconsequential, it's what Maura did and didn't do while still at her car that actually matters. And she certainly sat there with her door open for a couple minutes trying to find a cell signal, or smoking. That action just doesn't jive with someone who is so afraid of police they're About to walk miles into the woods to their death to avoid them.

Now the question is: when I dig up the quote where she uses the word leisurely are you going to change your opinion? If I dig it up are you going to admit it doesn't look like she was trying to elude police?? For some reason I sincerely doubt it.
Are you sure your not the one using your imagination here? You and a few other people Have made this assumption and decided that it's basically fact that Maura was trying to elude LE. Forget about the word leisurely for a minute and read the witnesses statements, it does not sound like she was overly concerned about LE.
She tried to find a cell signal and then got her stuff together when she couldn't, the same thing anybody else might do in that situation.

Bill that is 100% complete and utter bullshit and you know it.
You don't actually believe half the shit you write do you?

Look at the original pictures. Not the ones taken by renner after the car was damaged further while being held as evidence at troop F.

Look at the original pics from the NCN, there is basically no damage to her bumper as far as i can see. If you can link a picture and show me what the hell your talkin about I'd gladly change my assessment of the situation.

A plastic bumper will bounce back but if she hit a tree hard enough to push in her hood like that her bumper would've been damaged as well, it can't bounce back a foot.
Never mind the fact that the damage to the hood looks absolutely nothing like what you would expect from a tree, it is clearly damaged by something that was sticking out higher than the bumper.
The accident reconstructionist that was hired by the pis agree with that assessment.

You accuse people of doing exactly what you yourself are doing. You decided long ago that she get lost in the woods because she was drunk and trying to avoid police. You completely ignore all evidence and witness statements that don't fit with your theory.

In reality I don't even have a theory as to what happened to her. To me it appears like she caught a ride and was likely abducted, but I really don't know. All I'm trying to to is analyze the evidence and witness statements to try to come up with a theory as to what happened.
You on the other hand have already decided what you think happened and to hell with any evidence that says otherwise. Your a wicked hypocrite buddy.

You are the last person her who can say they're letting the evidence lead them, you clearly are not doing that.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Orko it is possible dispatch just wrote man there.
But dispatch isn't the only place FW said man, she also said it to the media I believe.
If you read the earliest news reports her desdriptiOn Of what she saw was very different than it is today. She could literally be a case study in how innacurate eye witnesses can sometimes be. It is very interesting to see how much her story has changed over the years

No, I fully believe FW didn't know if it was a man or a girl, I don't think she could see much in the way (of a physical description) based on accident reports and her own quotes. So to answer your question, IMO, the dispatch didn't write man down in error, but rather FW wasn't certain who was in the car and may have took a stab at the gender of the person.

I am also not one who believes her story or the SBD's story for that matter, had changed all that much.

there is a differece from a person giving completely different accounts of the same incident as opposed to the person being asked different questions about the same incident and giving slightly different answers to address a specific question that was asked.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Maruchan- Clearly your not looking hard enough, not even close. are you even looking or just talkin shit? When I get a minute I will dig up the quote, once again. This has already happened: people questioning the word leisurely and I dug up the quote. When I dig it up are you going to change your opinion?? I seriously doubt it...
Forget about the word leisurely for a minute, let's look at what she did.
Sbd come around the corner and she's either out of the car or getting out of the car, or still behind the airbag, he said all three on different occasions.
So sbd leaves.
She's then seen going back and forth between her car and her trunk a few times I believe, at least twice.
She is also seen sitting in her car, with the door open for a few minutes either smoking or trying to find a cell signal, prob tryin to get a signal.
So she sits in her car for a few minutes, she also goes to her trunk at least twice. She must have been at her car at least 5 mins, probably longer after sbd left. There is a quote that either the wman's or marottes saw her at the car 2 mins before LE arrived. We know it took smith 19 mins to arrive on scene after the first call from FW. Sbd was only on the scene about 3-5 mins I would say. If they actually saw her just a few minutes before LE then That means she must have been at her car for more like 10 minutes before she left.
think about it: 19min from when FW called and she saw the sbd come along within mins of making that call. Sbd was on scene for like 3-5 min. That means she had to be at the car for at least 5 min after he left, probably more like 10.
If she was so afraid of police that she was about to walk miles into the woods to her death to avoid them then why was she staying at her car at all?
FW definitely said leisurely, no doubt, we already went through this thing months ago.
But even without the word she was still at the car for at least a few minutes easy, probably 5-10.
Remember: she could've grabbed her backpack and been out of there in under 30 seconds flat after the sbd left, that's what you would expect from someone trying to avoid police, would you not?
But that's not what she did. She say there and tried to get a signal, when she couldn't get one she got her stuff together and left, likely flagging down a ride from a passing motorist.
Here's the problem I have with what your saying, your basing everything on one word, as if FW didn't say leisurely means that everything else she did at the car should be ignored. Whether she said leisurely is inconsequential, it's what Maura did and didn't do while still at her car that actually matters. And she certainly sat there with her door open for a couple minutes trying to find a cell signal, or smoking. That action just doesn't jive with someone who is so afraid of police they're About to walk miles into the woods to their death to avoid them.
Now the question is: when I dig up the quote where she uses the word leisurely are you going to change your opinion? If I dig it up are you going to admit it doesn't look like she was trying to elude police?? For some reason I sincerely doubt it.
Are you sure your not the one using your imagination here? You and a few other people Have made this assumption and decided that it's basically fact that Maura was trying to elude LE. Forget about the word leisurely for a minute and read the witnesses statements, it does not sound like she was overly concerned about LE.
She tried to find a cell signal and then got her stuff together when she couldn't, the same thing anybody else might do in that situation.

Please dig it up! I don't remember seeing anyone saying that she sat leisurely either.

The bumper is barely damaged, certainly nothing like it should be if a tree caused the hood to be pushed in.
There was no damage to any trees in the area.

The evidence clearly points to it NOT being a tree that caused the damage.
The evidence has led me to draw that conclusion, not some ass backwards preconceived notion like you have done.

Bill your the king of preconceived notions, it's unbelievable how much evidence you ignore because it doesn't fit with your theory.
You completely ignore all evidence and witness statements and cling to this theory that has absolutely zero evidence to support it and is 100% based on assumptions.

If you can show me damage to the bumper that is consistent with hitting a tree I'll gladly change my assessment. In reality that does nothing to effect what happened to her after the accident.

Bill you seriously need to take a look in the mirror before you say shit.
You also really need to stop ignoring evidence that doesn't fit with your theory of what happened.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I fully believe FW didn't know if it was a man or a girl, I don't think she could see much in the way (of a physical description) based on accident reports and her own quotes. So to answer your question, IMO, the dispatch didn't write man down in error, but rather FW wasn't certain who was in the car and may have took a stab at the gender of the person.
I am also not one who believes her story or the SBD's story for that matter, had changed all that much.
there is a differece from a person giving completely different accounts of the same incident as opposed to the person being asked different questions about the same incident and giving slightly different answers to address a specific question that was asked.

Hi Orko - You seem to be pretty good with a camera. Have you ever tried to edit the early photos of the car to create a cast of the indentation?

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Its obvious by looking at the photo nothing happened or stuck the pole.

What do you mean it's obvious? Maybe the pole was straightened out or replaced as shown in this picture without the snow.
An ice cold, rock solid snowbank with a pole buried deep within, especially if it was steel....well, it would make a gash in my mind.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, entirely incorrect. The entire bumper is damaged from the bottom to the top in a line with the damaged hood. Simply because its plastic, it bounced back. There is clearly damage. Again, you make things up to try to support your contention rather than let the evidence lead you.
Bill

right on que Bill

Orko- this is a quote from an early article entitled "Seeking outside help"; I'm not sure of what paper it was from though:

"Rausch said family members were told by at least one person living near the accident site a man was seen in Maura's car after the accident."

I think we can safely assume it was FW who told the family that right?

And yes, i was speaking about the "corner" where the snow was sheared off. No one ever said it was sheared off close to BHR.

The picture I saw was taken by whitewash, if I'm not mistaken. It was real hard to make out that there was what looked like a pole at an angle.
Then someone,(I believe it was she), who said yeah, there was one she thought after all.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Maruchan- Clearly your not looking hard enough, not even close. are you even looking or just talkin shit? When I get a minute I will dig up the quote, once again. This has already happened: people questioning the word leisurely and I dug up the quote. When I dig it up are you going to change your opinion?? I seriously doubt it...
Forget about the word leisurely for a minute, let's look at what she did.
Sbd come around the corner and she's either out of the car or getting out of the car, or still behind the airbag, he said all three on different occasions.
So sbd leaves.
She's then seen going back and forth between her car and her trunk a few times I believe, at least twice.
She is also seen sitting in her car, with the door open for a few minutes either smoking or trying to find a cell signal, prob tryin to get a signal.
So she sits in her car for a few minutes, she also goes to her trunk at least twice. She must have been at her car at least 5 mins, probably longer after sbd left. There is a quote that either the wman's or marottes saw her at the car 2 mins before LE arrived. We know it took smith 19 mins to arrive on scene after the first call from FW. Sbd was only on the scene about 3-5 mins I would say. If they actually saw her just a few minutes before LE then That means she must have been at her car for more like 10 minutes before she left.
think about it: 19min from when FW called and she saw the sbd come along within mins of making that call. Sbd was on scene for like 3-5 min. That means she had to be at the car for at least 5 min after he left, probably more like 10.
If she was so afraid of police that she was about to walk miles into the woods to her death to avoid them then why was she staying at her car at all?
FW definitely said leisurely, no doubt, we already went through this thing months ago.
But even without the word she was still at the car for at least a few minutes easy, probably 5-10.
Remember: she could've grabbed her backpack and been out of there in under 30 seconds flat after the sbd left, that's what you would expect from someone trying to avoid police, would you not?
But that's not what she did. She say there and tried to get a signal, when she couldn't get one she got her stuff together and left, likely flagging down a ride from a passing motorist.
Here's the problem I have with what your saying, your basing everything on one word, as if FW didn't say leisurely means that everything else she did at the car should be ignored. Whether she said leisurely is inconsequential, it's what Maura did and didn't do while still at her car that actually matters. And she certainly sat there with her door open for a couple minutes trying to find a cell signal, or smoking. That action just doesn't jive with someone who is so afraid of police they're About to walk miles into the woods to their death to avoid them.
Now the question is: when I dig up the quote where she uses the word leisurely are you going to change your opinion? If I dig it up are you going to admit it doesn't look like she was trying to elude police?? For some reason I sincerely doubt it.
Are you sure your not the one using your imagination here? You and a few other people Have made this assumption and decided that it's basically fact that Maura was trying to elude LE. Forget about the word leisurely for a minute and read the witnesses statements, it does not sound like she was overly concerned about LE.
She tried to find a cell signal and then got her stuff together when she couldn't, the same thing anybody else might do in that situation.

Blah blah blah.

Where's the quote?

I've never said she was trying to elude the police. You are simply evading and misdirecting, which you do all the time.

Again, where is the quote?"