Maura Murray

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you think the murderer orchestrated all of the above?

Has this ever occurred in other murder cases?

How many runaway/suicide cases can we present that show the support of so much obfuscation?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I think if you can lose a Lear jet in the less dense more southern part of NH and only find it by accident. Losing a person would be a piece of cake. It has happened many times, sometimes for decades and longer.
hater #2 - hates bullshit

Darling, yes, you can lose your Lear, but I doubt RF would have reported seeing it's passengers hurrying along on 112.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
She had lady luck on her side that she didn't hit and kill anyone while drinking and driving. I doubt you or citigirl or shack would be on this forum for years writing these posts had that snow bank been a person.
Good word "obfuscate" I had to look that up.

First saw that word in a Dr. Dobbs journal in 1983. It was in vogue word in programming because of him back then. Yep, I had to look it up first time also.

Bill

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Has this ever occurred in other murder cases?
How many runaway/suicide cases can we present that show the support of so much obfuscation?

That is simple. Look at any missing persons case. Almost all of them are a mystery because of missing facts, not obfuscation. I don't know that you understand the meaning of that word. Tell me who is purposely trying to confuse things? Is it the haters? Or is it the people that come up with cockamamie explanations for a simple accident of someone while driving and drinking?

Bill

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Darling, yes, you can lose your Lear, but I doubt RF would have reported seeing it's passengers hurrying along on 112.

But it is somehow surprising that someone MIGHT HAVE seen a young girl running from her crashed car after drinking? That is some kind of mystery to you?

Bill

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Has this ever occurred in other murder cases?
How many runaway/suicide cases can we present that show the support of so much obfuscation?

There's that word again.

How many runaway suicide cases start with the "victim" crashing their father's car and then the next day leaving only to crash her fathers car again?

What I find odd in this case in any Foul Play theory no one ever looks close to the ones closest to the victim. Its another clear sign that the Obfuscator and company only want a true mystery villian for the storys sake. If they truly thought foul play everyone would be in question, but they have certain people off limits for the story's sake.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Has this ever occurred in other murder cases?
How many runaway/suicide cases can we present that show the support of so much obfuscation?

I've never seen so much obfuscation as happens on this forum. But I don't think that has anything to do with whatever happened to Maura.

I think it's possible that Maura was murdered. But I don't see how it would by physically possible for the murderer to orchestrate much of what you mentioned in your previous post.

I don't think the murderer tapped on the W's door and said "Hey guys, I'm just wrapping up knocking someone off. Can you two talk to the cops and say one of you saw a man and another saw a woman? That would really help me out. Thanks."

Then he runs over to the bus driver's house and knocks to say "When the media asks you about all of this, can you tell them a couple versions of the story so as to create confusion? That would rock."

Then he catches up with Smith to ask "Any way you could make it out like you're so stupid that you think this girl I just killed's dad was driving this car? And when you write up the accident report, please do me a solid and screw up the times a little bit. If you could say she hit this tree instead of my trailer hitch, I'll buy you a beer."

Then on to the CW's house. Knock knock knock. "Sup dude, can you wait about three months and say you saw the chick I just killed running about five miles away?"

You seem to be an intelligent person, so I'm sure you understand that I'm being humorous to make a point. But seriously, I just don't see it as possible that any murderer orchestrated any of this confusion. It's the same problem I have with Weeper's theory -- that it just doesn't add up logically that a look-a-like was used and an accident was staged at the corner. If that is your opinion then I respect that. I don't really hate you or anyone else here. I just don't agree that it's a likely scenario.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I've never seen so much obfuscation as happens on this forum. But I don't think that has anything to do with whatever happened to Maura.
I think it's possible that Maura was murdered. But I don't see how it would by physically possible for the murderer to orchestrate much of what you mentioned in your previous post.
I don't think the murderer tapped on the W's door and said "Hey guys, I'm just wrapping up knocking someone off. Can you two talk to the cops and say one of you saw a man and another saw a woman? That would really help me out. Thanks."
Then he runs over to the bus driver's house and knocks to say "When the media asks you about all of this, can you tell them a couple versions of the story so as to create confusion? That would rock."
Then he catches up with Smith to ask "Any way you could make it out like you're so stupid that you think this girl I just killed's dad was driving this car? And when you write up the accident report, please do me a solid and screw up the times a little bit. If you could say she hit this tree instead of my trailer hitch, I'll buy you a beer."
Then on to the CW's house. Knock knock knock. "Sup dude, can you wait about three months and say you saw the chick I just killed running about five miles away?"
You seem to be an intelligent person, so I'm sure you understand that I'm being humorous to make a point. But seriously, I just don't see it as possible that any murderer orchestrated any of this confusion. It's the same problem I have with Weeper's theory -- that it just doesn't add up logically that a look-a-like was used and an accident was staged at the corner. If that is your opinion then I respect that. I don't really hate you or anyone else here. I just don't agree that it's a likely scenario.

I don't know Amy. When you say it like that it sounds kind of stupid. 8-)

Bill

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
There's that word again.
How many runaway suicide cases start with the "victim" crashing their father's car and then the next day leaving only to crash her fathers car again?
What I find odd in this case in any Foul Play theory no one ever looks close to the ones closest to the victim. Its another clear sign that the Obfuscator and company only want a true mystery villian for the storys sake. If they truly thought foul play everyone would be in question, but they have certain people off limits for the story's sake.

You are talking about Monaghan I presume.

Some of the "obfuscation" can be laid to the simple and well known fact of the unreliability of eyewitnesses, i.e., that no two witnesses will notice or see the same things and can also be confused about what they saw. The W's statements tend to bear this out -- what they saw might be correct but it might not be.

What the SBD saw appears to differ in accounts we have seen, but those accounts come from the media. Possibly he related a sequence of what he saw and each media reporter only picked out a portion of his whole statement, thus leading to the impression that he said different things.

The damage to the Saturn doesn't matter unless one holds the theory that Maura was being pursued by someone and that the damage reflects her vehicle being struck by that person. Likely the rag in tailpipe can be included in this same theory -- it doesn't matter unless she was being pursued.

The fact that she was seen walking around the Saturn to me tends to negate the idea that she was being pursued by anyone.

Advocator wrote:

Some of the "obfuscation" can be laid to the simple and well known fact of the unreliability of eyewitnesses, i.e., that no two witnesses will notice or see the same things and can also be confused about what they saw. The W's statements tend to bear this out -- what they saw might be correct but it might not be.
What the SBD saw appears to differ in accounts we have seen, but those accounts come from the media. Possibly he related a sequence of what he saw and each media reporter only picked out a portion of his whole statement, thus leading to the impression that he said different things.
The damage to the Saturn doesn't matter unless one holds the theory that Maura was being pursued by someone and that the damage reflects her vehicle being struck by that person. Likely the rag in tailpipe can be included in this same theory -- it doesn't matter unless she was being pursued.
The fact that she was seen walking around the Saturn to me tends to negate the idea that she was being pursued by anyone.

That is exactly the point. There are some here that see a conspiracy of the police forcing her off of the road. You missed the several month long debate about the police SUV having a trailer hitch and that was what damaged the hood. There were people here that feed off of that turd for months. Many people here need a conspiracy, a Maura lookalike, corrupt police, etc. It cannot for them to be what we see every day in emergency services. To them, that just doesn't happen. Yet we know it happens dozens if not hundreds of times a day. But it just isn't sexy enough for them. I mean a girl who drinks and crashes her car, and then runs from the car to avoid prosecution. That is way to simple. We need smokers in the car, rags must be stuffed up exhausts, trailer hitches must be used to damage the hood, grand police conspiracies must have occurred or better yet, people who assisted must have conspired to kidnap murder and god knows what else with local "predominant families" involved. You know, what shack calls the "upper crust".

Bill

Advocator wrote:

Some of the "obfuscation" can be laid to the simple and well known fact of the unreliability of eyewitnesses, i.e., that no two witnesses will notice or see the same things and can also be confused about what they saw. The W's statements tend to bear this out -- what they saw might be correct but it might not be.
What the SBD saw appears to differ in accounts we have seen, but those accounts come from the media. Possibly he related a sequence of what he saw and each media reporter only picked out a portion of his whole statement, thus leading to the impression that he said different things.
The damage to the Saturn doesn't matter unless one holds the theory that Maura was being pursued by someone and that the damage reflects her vehicle being struck by that person. Likely the rag in tailpipe can be included in this same theory -- it doesn't matter unless she was being pursued.
The fact that she was seen walking around the Saturn to me tends to negate the idea that she was being pursued by anyone.

I agree, obviously there were be a measure of unreliable details from witness accounts. Operative word here is details.
I don't consider the discrepancies as to the location of the Saturn at the WB a detail, coupled with the length of time it took for family to learn this, to me, is almost criminal.

And then throw in...... how many lie detectors tests?

Maura was beyond lucky.

Hey bill you've done sar for 25 years right?
I think I asked this before, you've never actually not found the person you were lookin for right? Meaning every time you've ever gone on a SAR mission your team, or someOne, ended up finding to person correct?

How often would you say the person is just never found? What's the percentage about? Do you know? I'm no SAR expert but it seems like the vast majority of the time the subject of the search is found, do you agree with that statement?

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
A link to a blog was posted, and I thought it was well-written and funny so I replied. Sorry for interrupting the brilliant flow of discussion about how far is "way up" a tailpipe, how many people do or do not live in a vacant lot, who is or is not a pervert, what a deceased woman might or might not have said on a forum that no longer exists, IP tracing, how leisurely a cigarette was or was
not smoked, and who the heck Eric or Roo could possibly be. Wouldn't want to derail any of that. lol

I meant nothing in regards to your post. My point was that, at random intervals, someone pops in and mentions Beagle. That's all.

No offense intended.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

How often would you say the person is just never found? What's the percentage about? Do you know? I'm no SAR expert but it seems like the vast majority of the time the subject of the search is found, do you agree with that statement?

We went over this last week. Remember the plane in the forest.

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
I meant nothing in regards to your post. My point was that, at random intervals, someone pops in and mentions Beagle. That's all.
No offense intended.

I have read that if you write his name three times in the forum he will randomly start to post.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>...You missed the several month long debate about the police SUV having a trailer hitch and that was what damaged the hood. Bill

I didn't miss that, actually, it was quite some time ago though. While a police involvement and coverup isn't 100% out of the question, it is way down there on the list of possibilities, IMHO.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I've never seen so much obfuscation as happens on this forum. But I don't think that has anything to do with whatever happened to Maura.
I think it's possible that Maura was murdered. But I don't see how it would by physically possible for the murderer to orchestrate much of what you mentioned in your previous post.
I don't think the murderer tapped on the W's door and said "Hey guys, I'm just wrapping up knocking someone off. Can you two talk to the cops and say one of you saw a man and another saw a woman? That would really help me out. Thanks."
Then he runs over to the bus driver's house and knocks to say "When the media asks you about all of this, can you tell them a couple versions of the story so as to create confusion? That would rock."
Then he catches up with Smith to ask "Any way you could make it out like you're so stupid that you think this girl I just killed's dad was driving this car? And when you write up the accident report, please do me a solid and screw up the times a little bit. If you could say she hit this tree instead of my trailer hitch, I'll buy you a beer."
Then on to the CW's house. Knock knock knock. "Sup dude, can you wait about three months and say you saw the chick I just killed running about five miles away?"
You seem to be an intelligent person, so I'm sure you understand that I'm being humorous to make a point. But seriously, I just don't see it as possible that any murderer orchestrated any of this confusion. It's the same problem I have with Weeper's theory -- that it just doesn't add up logically that a look-a-like was used and an accident was staged at the corner. If that is your opinion then I respect that. I don't really hate you or anyone else here. I just don't agree that it's a likely scenario.

Well, I'm certainly not going to dispute your "intelligent person" comment :)

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Hey bill you've done sar for 25 years right?
I think I asked this before, you've never actually not found the person you were lookin for right? Meaning every time you've ever gone on a SAR mission your team, or someOne, ended up finding to person correct?
How often would you say the person is just never found? What's the percentage about? Do you know? I'm no SAR expert but it seems like the vast majority of the time the subject of the search is found, do you agree with that statement?

Personally, most of my searches have been in CT and yes, we or other have always found our subject. I have participated in some other in VT, NY, MA and NH and with the exception of the Lear jet which was eventually stumbled upon years later, by accident, that was found also. There is at least one search that I remember recently in NH, a hunter that to my knowledge has still not been found, a couple of years, or more in what should be a "relatively" small search area. People do disappear and sometimes do not show up for a very long time. They didn't get transported or dematerialize (except those out long enough to decompose or otherwise break down). When you search for someone is when you realize how small they are and how big the world is. Patric was found after a massive search after a few days and he was only 2 miles away and half the search area didn't even need to be searched because they had a very good idea which direction he traveled. Finding people is not as easy as many others think. There was never a search for Maura of the intensity that they had for Patric or even that Lear jet for Maura. No where near as big, or coordinated. They also have a confusing PLS/LKP because of the second sighting. If you believe the second sighting, why waste what few resources you have near the car. If you don't then they should have either kept searching areas of attraction near the car, or expanding the search area around the car. We have no idea what they did, what they thought the POA were, or what POD they think they have. With the exception of the hasty searches done that night (I should also point out that 97% of people found are found during the hasty search phase of the search) and the searches done by a couple of the dog teams and in particular the one coordinated by USFS, I have serious questions about the quality of what was done.

Bill

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
We went over this last week. Remember the plane in the forest.

Should also be pointed out that isn't the only plane that was lost in the forest. There are several. Most have now been found, but they were missing for not an inconsiderable period of time.

Bill