Maura Murray

-Anne wrote:

<quoted text>Bill, I'd ask for a quick update here, but I see your continued sarcasm provides all the answers I need. Still deflecting in a consistant manner any constructive discussion. Its impressive and very telling verifying the truths that you aggressively continue to try to bury..you are right about one thing, certainly not productive to pursue here.

Anne,you've been here alot longer than many of us..Do you know of any truths that are agressively buried..Your viewpoint would be appreciated.

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Citigirl. I know what you are saying. Ok here is the scoop. I was misunderstood on what I was trying to say many posts ago. The infamous "put your money where your mouth is" post. I might not be great at putting my thoughts in words and it came across wrong. I tried very hard afterwards to explain my post yet it wasn't accepted.
I continued to get battered even though I tried very hard to clarify what I meant to say.
I was frustrated, confused and angry because I felt that my time spent here was for not. I am not a social media person
and only started posting on this forum because I was captivated by the mystery of the case and I wanted to try to contribute in some way.

my problem was when you had told both me and Wowzer to both help.We have both helped. I was willing to accept maybe I misunderstood what you were saying when you stated put your money where your mouth is. I was open and honest with you with my reply and you have come after me since then.

Alden Howes Olson wrote:

Jenkins -
When describing Maura's footwear at the WB curve, you've used the term "tennis shoes" many times. It's obvious you're a hip, fairly young guy, but "tennis shoes" is almost archaic. Almost no one under 60-70 years old even uses the term. Why use "tennis shoes" instead of "sneakers" or some other more current term?
Thanks.

Im actually in the clothing business,the term tennis shoes is used by hipsters&well bred young people..The term is still very viable.

I say tennis shoes also. I feel 70 some days but just turned 33.

-Anne wrote:

<quoted text>Bill, I'd ask for a quick update here, but I see your continued sarcasm provides all the answers I need. Still deflecting in a consistant manner any constructive discussion. Its impressive and very telling verifying the truths that you aggressively continue to try to bury..you are right about one thing, certainly not productive to pursue here.

I'm sorry Anne. Was there someone breaking new ground here? Did I disrupt someones concentration?

Why, were you were coming to contribute that piece of evidence that will break this case open? Let us know when you get around to it. I'll listen, can't wait till I can hear what it is.

Until then. I see the same remarkable lines of bullshit repeated over and over and over. So tell me, other than keeping Maura's name in this incredibly useful forum. What brilliant new insights have come out of it? And what kind of damage has been done? How much work has been done just to keep the level of bullshit from overtaking any semblance of reality in this case?

Bill

Lower Slower Delaware wrote:

<quoted text>Amsterdam world capitol for hookers and dope smokers. Gay men have "cat fights" also, BITCH.

bump

findmaura wrote:

<quoted text>
Im actually in the clothing business,the term tennis shoes is used by hipsters&well bred young people..The term is still very viable.

It's good to know that Jenkins is not only a hipster, but a well bred one to boot. Maybe I should get out more, hang around Foot Locker, ask the hip, young clerk where the tennis shoe are.

amy researches wrote:

I say tennis shoes also.

Yeah, but you're from Illinois.

Alden Howes Olson wrote:

<quoted text>It's good to know that Jenkins is not only a hipster, but a well bred one to boot. Maybe I should get out more, hang around Foot Locker, ask the hip, young clerk where the tennis shoe are.

I have only heard older people & certain types of women say tennis shoes.. Hipsters, emos, goths; none hang at footlocker, they goto hot topic & stuff.. & well bred young men?? Whats that mean? Must be a new england term or somethin..

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
you missed the point again. I said the point is not about the money. The point is that a family member is not interested in supplying the posters. If she doesn't have the posters to supply then she can speak to the family member that does.
I know I said it is not about the money, However believe it or not $40 is alot of money for me. Emmett they pay crap up here for employment. The average family in Lincoln medium income 28k and that is for a family!! yea it sucks big time.
Regardless the point wasn't the money but the fact that the family member wasn't all over someone willing to do the leg work and only had to supply the posters. Anyhow the whole thing is moot as I am not interest anylonger.

Ohh ok.. I feel ya.. & i didnt know.. I thought it cost a lot to live up yonder..

Alden Howes Olson wrote:

Jenkins -
When describing Maura's footwear at the WB curve, you've used the term "tennis shoes" many times. It's obvious you're a hip, fairly young guy, but "tennis shoes" is almost archaic. Almost no one under 60-70 years old even uses the term. Why use "tennis shoes" instead of "sneakers" or some other more current term?
Thanks.

Honestly, I never knew what to hell to call them. If you look at my most recent posts on the topic I actually did start calling them sneakers. Originally everyone called them 'bowling style' shoes which I took to be flats, cuz who wears bowling shoes? Then orky came out and said they were 'tennis shoes'; he's usually pretty accurate so in the spirit of accuracy I started calling them that.
Well but then i came across one of the missing posters, one I never saw before, that actually had a pic of her shoes. They're not tennis shoes, they're definitely not bowling shoes, they're regular addidas sneakers that look like soccer shoes if anything. But those are just sneakers, that's why in my most recent posts I went to sneakers.

In reality I never was exactly sure what to call them til I saw that pic, but the exact type of sneaker she had doesn't really matter. What matters is the fact that they were low cut shoes. Not the kind of shoes you go walking into the woods through 2' of snow, or even 6" for that matter. Anybody experienced with north country winters, who's being honest too, knows that you can't go walking far into the woods wearing sneakers, thats just ridiculous.

I think the type of footwear she brought with her for this trip up north is very telling as to her intentions for the trip. She had her addidas' and some running shoes. It is very clear that she was not planning on entering the woods at any point when she left umass that day, there's just no way. If she was plannin on climbing a mt with a bottle of jack & drink herself to death she would've brought boots. Anybody who knows anything about mountains knows that there ain't no way in hell your making it to the top of a mt in February wearing addidas' or running shoes. The whole point of that would be to make it to the top of the mt, not just die in the middle of the woods somewhere.
When she left the car that night just what she was wearing made entering those woods at that time next to impossible. You ain't making it very far into the woods through 2.5' of snow wearing a pair of addidas sneakers, ain't happening. Nvm the fact that the woods would be the absolute worst place to hide from LE since they could just follow the giant trail you'd leave behind you.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Bob, all the shit you don't know fills volumes. We have already established that. The point was, there are five year olds that could have googled that and found the answer in literally, one minute, but you couldn't pull it off. As for you googleing it, give me a break. Goggle "hx meaning". Here, I'll help you.
https://www.google.com/search...
Hope that didn't tax you too much. Google is your friend.
Bill

You really think I'm gonna be insulted by that comment? You really do too! That's what makes you such a huge dumbass. Of course what I don't know could fill volumes, but that also applies literally to every single human on the face of the earth, including you bill. Yes bill, what you don't know could fill volumes, many many volumes, many libraries in reality.
Just the fact that you would even try to use that saying as an insult shows how stupid you really are. I'm not talking intelligence, your an intelligent person, but you lack wisdom; street smarts.
You saying that as an insult directly implies that you couldn't fill volumes with what you don't know. The fact that you think that means you seriously lack wisdom, you think you know everything and you don't. But I suppose that's an extremely common trait amongst engineers, they're very intelligent people but lack any and all street smarts. Since you clearly have no people skills your like a textbook engineer, stereotypically speaking that is.
You really think idk how to google somethig? You really think I didn't google that before I asked?? Unfortunately the google results on an iPhone are often not the same as on a pc at home, I put it in google and got back results about an obscure author, that's why I asked.
But see, that's the difference between you & I; I know idk everything. I'm not afraid to admit idk something, I'm not afraid to ask a Q if idk something. I don't literally think I know everything. That's what makes you such a stupid person in reality, you actually think you know everything about everything. That's the mark of someone who seriously is lacking in any and all wisdom, has no street smarts. I'm not saying I'm all old and wise, not by a long shot, but I at least have the brains and the balls to admit when I'm wrong and admit when I don't know something, that's something you could never do and that's what makes you such a big dumbass in reality.

What you don't know could clearly fill libraries, that is a indisputable fact. You can't know that much, at least based on the fact that you don't even know how many houses you own! YOU FORGOT HOW MANY HOUSES YOU CLAIMED YOU OWNED!! LOL You said it 3 times in that post, that ain't no typo, that's bullshit.

Emmett Dove wrote:

Lmao at all the alias'... Mac Addys tell the truth even when using a proxy... Thats HS stuff..
All the proxies in the world doesnt change your Mac..

Who's using alias' Emmett? Your talkin about Alden/northwesternDA/beagle/et c/etc/etc right?

Your obviously searching people's ip's, I'd love to know. How the hell do you search an ip addy off of a forum like this anyways? You don't have to give me step by step instructions or anything I'm just wondering how one would even start going about doing something like that.

findmaura wrote:

<quoted text>
Anne,you've been here alot longer than many of us..Do you know of any truths that are agressively buried..Your viewpoint would be appreciated.

I'm not Anne, & I'm sure the forum police will get on my ass for answering for her like they always do to me, but I have a good example.

The fact that all of the damage to her car is not consistent with happening at the WB curve. This fact is aggressively buried/deflected constantly by the super trolls we have on this thread.

Last nite I made a post about the damage to her car and how it is not consistent at all with it happening at the WB curve alone. The damage below her bumper is perfectly consistent with hitting a snowbank. But then there's basically no damage to her bumper and the hood has a rather deep and sharp dent. This damage did NOT come from a tree, it just didn't. All of this damage was not caused by a snowbank either.

I brought up the fact that early on on the MM and he MMM forums me and others theorized that this damage was not all caused at the WB curve. I posted that the PI's hired an accident reconstructionist and this expert affirmed what many of us had been thinking all along, that this damage was not caused at the WB curve alone. We don't know what else caused this damage, but we do know it wasn't a snowbank or a tree.

Bills response to my post about that? "whoooooosh whoosh whoosh", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. These people have very actively & aggresively tried to deflect/stop any conversation about this fact. They've also actively tried to bury this fact under a mound of bullshit. Whoosh whoosh whoosh?? Really dude? We know that the damage wasn't caused at the WB curve alone and that's whoosh whoosh?
Bill has even gone so far to praise smiths report!! There was a post he made a couple months ago where he called it excellent, or something to that effect. That accident report is a lot of things, but it's not excellent, or even accurate. In fact, the tow truck driver and the tv repair man who worked EMS gave a much more accurate analysis of the accident, one that actually makes sense given the damage and what the witnesses reported. Smiths report is actually extremely inaccurate and just plain wrong.

The fact that these people constantly try to say the damage happened at the WB curve alone, and constantly are trying to deflect/bury any and all conversation about the damage to her car, which is some of the only evidence in this case, should be a huge, gigantic red flag to anybody who's objective. It's crazy, these people actually have resorted to trying to ridicule anyone who mentions this. They also try to bury all conversation on this with personal attacks, and stupid mindless minutiae about inconsequential details. They want us arguing about things that don't matter. They don't want us talkin about important things, like where did the damage ABOVE her bumper come from? How do you explain that damage? Cuz it wasn't a snowbank, and it sure wasn't no tree either.
So how is that whoosh whoosh whoosh? Something that could be the crux of this case is whoosh whoosh whoosh???? Just that comment alone should show that these people are full of shit.
The damage to her car is a prime example of something these people have actively and aggressively tried to bury/deflect & stop. They try to ridicule anyone who talks about this, I'd that doesn't tell you something right there then idk.

Alden Howes Olson wrote:

<quoted text>It's good to know that Jenkins is not only a hipster, but a well bred one to boot. Maybe I should get out more, hang around Foot Locker, ask the hip, young clerk where the tennis shoe are.

OMG. Too funny. SNL material.

I agree b

That was some funny shit Alden

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>

Last nite I made a post about the damage to her car and how it is not consistent at all with it happening at the WB curve alone. The damage below her bumper is perfectly consistent with hitting a snowbank. But then there's basically no damage to her bumper and the hood has a rather deep and sharp dent. This damage did NOT come from a tree, it just didn't. All of this damage was not caused by a snowbank either.

A Saturn like Maura's rear-ended me a few years ago at N/S Maple and Russell St. lights. My steel bumper took a medium hit, became bent by Saturn bumper. But Saturn bumper sustained zero damage. So... there was moderate damage to steel bumper of light truck frame vehicle and zero damage to bumper of Saturn. About same year as Murray's Saturn. I have pics to prove it and the woman is still driving the same Saturn around town.

That being said, according to the autobody guy I spoke with, the damage in the photo of the front of the Saturn did come from two separate impacts. The autobody guy had 20 years experience and actually saw the Saturn before it left Amherst, when it had the "ripples" in the hood.

In sum, it sounds like the front of the Saturn did sustain two separate impacts, but because a Saturn bumper, which is plastic, will "bounce" back, the lack of bumper damage does not necessarily mean much.

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>Unfortunately the google results on an iPhone are often not the same as on a pc at home, I put it in google and got back results about an obscure author, that's why I asked.

Speaking of someone full of shit. You are not the only person with an iPhone and I just used safari to google "hx meaning" and got the same exact answers. So again Bob, your full of shit.

Bill

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
You really think I'm gonna be insulted by that comment?

It's not that you are as dumb as a bag of rocks. Many people aren't that bright. It's that you pretend to know what you are talking about. That is what makes you someone to watch. You repeatedly talk, as though you know what you are talking about when in reality, you don't have a clue. And yes Bob, is it fun to hear you spout off. Because when you write something, anything, I know to check it for accuracy.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Speaking of someone full of shit. You are not the only person with an iPhone and I just used safari to google "hx meaning" and got the same exact answers. So again Bob, your full of shit.
Bill

I just went on Jenkopedia and when you look up the definition of anyword it states: "make up any definition that you wish and add 'it just is' to validate the meaning."